John Adams sent the following lucid essay to Hezekiah Niles, editor of the Weekly Register, on February 13, 1818, and Niles praised it three weeks later. "Those who delight to trace the early dawnings of the American
Revolution," wrote Niles in an editorial note, ". . . will be grateful for this tribute to the memory of the illustrious dead,
from the pen of such a distinguished co-adjutor and co-patriot, as John Adams." The essay may have produced more than gratitude;
it is thought that it inspired Niles to collect and publish his monumental Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America (1822), a leading source of our knowledge of the period.

The American Revolution was not a common event. Its effects and consequences have already been awful over a great part of
the globe. And when and where are they to cease?

But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American War? The Revolution was effected before the War commenced.
The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people, a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations.
While the king, and all in authority under him, were believed to govern in justice and mercy according to the laws and constitution
derived to them from the God of nature, and transmitted to them by their ancestors, they thought themselves bound to pray
for the king and queen and all the royal family, and all in authority under them, as ministers ordained of God for their good.
But when they saw those powers renouncing all the principles of authority, and bent upon the destruction of all the securities
of their lives, liberties, and properties, they thought it their duty to pray for the Continental Congress and all the thirteen
state congresses, etc.

There might be, and there were, others who thought less about religion and conscience, but had certain habitual sentiments
of allegiance and loyalty derived from their education; but believing allegiance and protection to be reciprocal, when protection
was withdrawn, they thought allegiance was dissolved.

Another alteration was common to all. The people of America had been educated in a habitual affection for England as their
mother country; and while they thought her a kind and tender parent (erroneously enough, however, for she never was such a
mother) no affection could be more sincere. But when they found her a cruel beldam, willing, like Lady Macbeth, to "dash their
brains out," it is no wonder if their filial affections ceased and were changed into indignation and horror.

This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.

By what means this great and important alteration in the religious, moral, political, and social character of the people of
thirteen colonies, all distinct, unconnected, and independent of each other, was begun, pursued, and accomplished, it is surely
interesting to humanity to investigate and perpetuate to posterity.

To this end it is greatly to be desired that young gentlemen of letters in all the states, especially in the thirteen original
states, would undertake the laborious, but certainly interesting and amusing, task of searching and collecting all the records,
pamphlets, newspapers, and even handbills which in any way contributed to change the temper and views of the people and compose
them into an independent nation.

The colonies had grown up under constitutions of government so different; there was so great a variety of religions; they
were composed of so many different nations; their customs, manners, and habits had so little resemblance; and their intercourse
had been so rare and their knowledge of each other so imperfect that to unite them in the same principles in theory and the
same system of action was certainly a very difficult enterprise. The complete accomplishment of it in so short a time and
by such simple means was perhaps a singular example in the history of mankind. Thirteen clocks were made to strike together:
a perfection of mechanism which no artist had ever before effected.

In this research, the glorioles of individual gentlemen and of separate states is of little consequence. The means and the
measures are the proper objects of investigation. These may be of use to posterity, not only in this nation, but in South
America and all other countries. They may teach mankind that revolutions are no trifles; that they ought never to be undertaken
rashly; nor without deliberate consideration and sober reflection; nor without a solid, immutable, eternal foundation of justice
and humanity; nor without a people possessed of intelligence, fortitude, and integrity sufficient to carry them with steadiness,
patience, and perseverance through all the vicissitudes of fortune, the fiery trials, and melancholy disasters they may have
to encounter.

The town of Boston early instituted an annual oration on the 4th of July, in commemoration of the principles and feelings
which contributed to produce the Revolution. Many of those orations I have heard, and all that I could obtain I have read.
Much ingenuity and eloquence appears upon every subject except those principles and feelings. That of my honest and amiable
neighbor Josiah Quincy appeared to me the most directly to the purpose of the institution. Those principles and feelings ought
to be traced back for 200 years and sought in the history of the country from the first plantations in America. Nor should
the principles and feelings of the English and Scots toward the colonies through that whole period ever be forgotten. The
perpetual discordance between British principles and feelings and those of America, the next year after the suppression of
the French power in America, came to a crisis and produced an explosion.

It was not until after the annihilation of the French dominion in America that any British ministry had dared to gratify their
own wishes, and the desire of the nation, by projecting a formal plan for raising a national revenue from America by parliamentary
taxation. The first great manifestation of this design was by the order to carry into strict execution those acts of Parliament
which were well-known by the appellation of the Acts of Trade, which had lain a dead letter, unexecuted for half a century--and
some of them, I believe, for nearly a whole one.

This produced, in 1760 and 1761, an awakening and a revival of American principles and feelings, with an enthusiasm which
went on increasing till in 1775 it burst out in open violence, hostility, and fury.

The characters the most conspicuous, the most ardent and influential in this revival, from 1760 to 1766, were first and foremost,
before all and above all, James Otis; next to him was Oxenbridge Thatcher; next to him Samuel Adams; next to him John Hancock;
then Dr. Mayhew; then Dr. Cooper and his brother. Of Mr. Hancock's life, character, generous nature, great and disinterested
sacrifices, and important services, if I had forces, I should be glad to write a volume. But this I hope will be done by some
younger and abler hand.

Mr. Thatcher, because his name and merits are less known, must not be wholly omitted. This gentleman was an eminent barrister
at law, in as large practice as anyone in Boston. There was not a citizen of that town more universally beloved for his learning,
ingenuity, every domestic and social virtue, and conscientious conduct in every relation of life. His patriotism was as ardent
as his progenitors had been ancient and illustrious in this country. Hutchinson often said, "Thatcher was not born a plebeian,
but he was determined to die one." In May 1768, I believe, he was chosen by the town of Boston one of their representatives
in the legislature, a colleague with Mr. Otis, who had been a member from May 1761, and he continued to be reelected annually
till his death in 1765, when Mr. Samuel Adams was elected to fill his place, in the absence of Mr. Otis then attending the
congress at New York. Thatcher had long been jealous of the unbounded ambition of Mr. Hutchinson, but when he found him not content with the office of lieutenant governor, the command of the castle and its emoluments,
of judge of probate for the county of Suffolk, a seat in his Majesty's Council in the legislature, his brother-in-law secretary
of state by the king's commission, a brother of that secretary of state a judge of the Supreme Court and a member of Council;
now in 1760 and 1761 soliciting and accepting the office of chief justice of the Superior Court of Judicature, he concluded,
as Mr. Otis did, and as every other enlightened friend of his country did, that he sought that office with the determined
purpose of determining all causes in favor of the ministry at St. James's and their servile Parliament.

His indignation against him henceforward, to 1765 when he died, knew no bounds but truth. I speak from personal knowledge,
for, from 1758 to 1765, I attended every superior and inferior court in Boston, and recollect not one in which he did not
invite me home to spend evenings with him, when he made me converse with him as well as I could on all subjects of religion,
morals, law, politics, history, philosophy, belle-lettres, theology, mythology, cosmogony, metaphysics (Locke, Clark, Leibniz,
Bolingbroke, Berkeley), the preestablished harmony of the universe, the nature of matter and of spirit, and the eternal establishment
of coincidences between their operations, fate, foreknowledge, absolute. We reasoned on such unfathomable subjects as high
as Milton's gentry in pandemonium; and we understood them as well as they did, and no better. To such mighty mysteries he
added the news of the day, and the tittle-tattle of the town.

But his favorite subject was politics, and the impending threatening system of parliamentary taxation and universal government
over the colonies. On this subject he was so anxious and agitated that I have no doubt it occasioned his premature death.
From the time when he argued the question of writs of assistance to his death, he considered the king, ministry, Parliament,
and nation of Great Britain as determined to new-model the colonies from the foundation; to annul all their charters, to constitute
them all royal governments; to raise a revenue in America by parliamentary taxation; to apply that revenue to pay the salaries
of governors, judges, and all other Crown officers; and after all this, to raise as large a revenue as they pleased, to be
applied to national purposes at the exchequer in England; and further to establish bishops and the whole system of the Church
of England, tithes and all, throughout all British America. This system, he said, if it was suffered to prevail, would extinguish
the flame of liberty all over the world; that America would be employed as an engine to batter down all the miserable remains
of liberty in Great Britain and Ireland, where only any semblance of it was left in the world. To this system he considered
Hutchinson, the Olivers, and all their connections, dependants, adherents, and shoelickers entirely devoted. He asserted that
they were all engaged with all the Crown officers in America and the understrappers of the ministry in England in a deep and
treasonable conspiracy to betray the liberties of their country for their own private, personal, and family aggrandizement.

His philippics against the unprincipled ambition and avarice of all of them, but especially of Hutchinson, were unbridled,
not only in private, confidential conversations but in all companies and on all occasions. He gave Hutchinson the sobriquet
of "Summa Potestatis," and rarely mentioned him but by the name of "Summa." His liberties of speech were no secrets to his
enemies. I have sometimes wondered that they did not throw him over the bar, as they did soon afterwards Major Hawley. They
hated him worse than they did James Otis, or Samuel Adams, and they feared him more, because they had no revenge for a father's
disappointment of a seat on the superior bench to impute to him, as they did to Otis; and Thatcher's character through life
had been so modest, decent, unassuming, his morals so pure, and his religion so venerated that they dared not attack him.
In his office were educated to the bar two eminent characters, the late Judge Lowell and Josiah Quincy, aptly called the Boston
Cicero.

Mr. Thatcher's frame was slender, his constitution delicate; whether his physicians overstrained his vessels with mercury
when he had the smallpox by inoculation at the castle, or whether he was overplied by public anxieties and exertions, the
smallpox left him in a decline from which he never recovered. Not long before his death he sent for me to commit to my care
some of his business at the bar. I asked him whether he had seen the Virginia Resolves:

Oh yes, they are men! They are noble spirits! It kills me to think of the lethargy and stupidity that prevails here. I long
to be out. I will go out. I will go out. I will go into court and make a speech which shall be read after my death as my dying
testimony against this infernal tyranny they are bringing upon us.

Seeing the violent agitation into which it threw him, I changed the subject as soon as possible, and retired. He had been
confined for some time. Had he been abroad among the people he would not have complained so pathetically of the "lethargy
and stupidity that prevailed," for town and country were all alive, and in August became active enough and some of the people
proceeded to unwarrantable excesses, which were more lamented by the patriots than by their enemies. Mr. Thatcher soon died,
deeply lamented by all the friends of their country.

Another gentleman who had great influence in the commencement of the Revolution was Dr. Jonathan Mayhew, a descendant of the ancient governor of Martha's Vineyard. This divine had raised a great reputation both in Europe and
America by the publication of a volume of seven sermons in the reign of King George II, 1749, and by many other writings,
particularly a sermon in 1750 on January 30, on the subject of passive obedience and nonresistance, in which the saintship
and martyrdom of King Charles I are considered, seasoned with wit and satire superior to any in Swift or Franklin. It was
read by everybody, celebrated by friends, and abused by enemies.

During the reigns of King George I and King George II, the reigns of the Stuarts (the two Jameses and the two Charleses) were
in general disgrace in England. In America they had always been held in abhorrence. The persecutions and cruelties suffered
by their ancestors under those reigns had been transmitted by history and tradition, and Mayhew seemed to be raised up to
revive all their animosity against tyranny in church and state, and at the same time to destroy their bigotry, fanaticism,
and inconsistency. David Hume's plausible, elegant, fascinating, and fallacious apology, in which he varnished over the crimes
of the Stuarts, had not then appeared.

To draw the character of Mayhew would be to transcribe a dozen volumes. This transcendent genius threw all the weight of his
great fame into the scale of his country in 1761, and maintained it there with zeal and ardor till his death in 1766. In 1763
appeared the controversy between him and Mr. Apthorp, Mr. Caner, Dr. Johnson, and Archbishop Secker on the charter and conduct
of the society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts. To form a judgment of this debate I beg leave to refer to a review
of the whole, printed at the time and written by Samuel Adams, though by some very absurdly and erroneously ascribed to Mr.
Apthorp. If I am not mistaken, it will be found a model of candor, sagacity, impartiality, and close correct reasoning.

If any gentleman supposes this controversy to be nothing to the present purpose, he is grossly mistaken. It spread a universal
alarm against the authority of Parliament. It excited a general and just apprehension that bishops and dioceses and churches
and priests and tithes were to be imposed upon us by Parliament. It was known that neither king, nor ministry, nor archbishops
could appoint bishops in America without an act of Parliament; and if Parliament could tax us they could establish the Church
of England with all its creeds, articles, tests, ceremonies, and tithes, and prohibit all other churches as conventicles and
schism shops.

Nor must Mr. Cushing be forgotten. His good sense and sound judgment, the urbanity of his manners, his universal good character,
his numerous friends and connections, and his continual intercourse with all sorts of people, added to his constant attachment
to the liberties of his country, gave him a great and salutary influence from the beginning in 1760.

Let me recommend these hints to the consideration of Mr. Wirt, whose life of Mr. Henry I have read with great delight. I think
that after mature investigation he will be convinced that Mr. Henry did not "give the first impulse to the ball of independence,"
and that Otis, Thatcher, Samuel Adams, Mayhew, Hancock, Cushing, and thousands of others were laboring for several years at
the wheel before the name of Mr. Henry was heard beyond the limits of Virginia.

If you print this, I will endeavor to send you something concerning Samuel Adams, who was destined to a longer career, and
to act a more conspicuous and, perhaps, a more important part than any other man. But his life would require a volume.

President Roosevelt was a conservationist by nature. An enthusiastic outdoorsman, he also recognized that the industrial transformation
of the United States since the Civil War had made coal, timber, and other natural resources vital to the welfare of the country.
Thus, he supported the work of federally employed civil engineers and foresters. In a special message to Congress on January
22, 1909 (reprinted here in part), he urged the formation of nationally supervised agencies to conserve natural resources.
His proposals included the creation of a Bureau of Mines, as well as the strengthening of the Inland Waterways Commission.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report of the National Conservation Commission, together with the accompanying papers. This report,
which is the outgrowth of the Conference of Governors last May, was unanimously approved by the recent joint conference held
in this city between the National Conservation Commission and governors of states, state conservation commissions, and conservation
committees of great organizations of citizens. It is, therefore, in a peculiar sense, representative of the whole nation and
all its parts.

With the statements and conclusions of this report I heartily concur, and I commend it to the thoughtful consideration both
of the Congress and of our people generally. It is one of the most fundamentally important documents ever laid before the
American people. It contains the first inventory of its natural resources ever made by any nation. In condensed form it presents
a statement of our available capital in material resources, which are the means of progress, and calls attention to the essential
conditions upon which the perpetuity, safety, and welfare of this nation now rest and must always continue to rest. It deserves,
and should have, the widest possible distribution among the people. . . .

The National Conservation Commission wisely confined its report to the statement of facts and principles, leaving the Executive
to recommend the specific steps to which these facts and principles inevitably lead. Accordingly, I call your attention to
some of the larger features of the situation disclosed by the report and to the action thereby clearly demanded for the general
good.

WATERS

The report says:

Within recent months it has been recognized and demanded by the people, through many thousand delegates from all states assembled
in convention in different sections of the country, that the waterways should and must be improved promptly and effectively
as a means of maintaining national prosperity.

The first requisite for waterway improvement is the control of the waters in such manner as to reduce floods and regulate
the regimen of the navigable rivers. The second requisite is development of terminals and connection in such manner as to
regulate commerce.

Accordingly, I urge that the broad plan for the development of our waterways recommended by the Inland Waterways Commission
be put in effect without delay. It provides for a comprehensive system of waterway improvement extending to all the uses of
the waters and benefits to be derived from their control, including navigation, the development of power, the extension of
irrigation, the drainage of swamp and overflow lands, the prevention of soil wash, and the purification of streams for water
supply. It proposes to carry out the work by coordinating agencies in the federal departments through the medium of an administrative
commission or board acting in cooperation with the states and other organizations and individual citizens.

The work of waterway development should be undertaken without delay. Meritorious projects in known conformity with the general
outlines of any comprehensive plan should proceed at once. The cost of the whole work should be met by direct appropriation,
if possible, but, if necessary, by the issue of bonds in small denominations.

It is especially important that the development of waterpower should be guarded with the utmost care both by the national
government and by the states in order to protect the people against the upgrowth of monopoly and to insure to them a fair
share in the benefits which will follow the development of this great asset which belongs to the people and should be controlled
by them.

FORESTS

I urge that provision be made for both protection and more rapid development of the national forests. Otherwise, either the increasing use of these forests by the people must be checked or their protection against fire must
be dangerously weakened. If we compare the actual fire damage on similar areas on private and national forest lands during
the past year, the government fire patrol saved commercial timber worth as much as the total cost of caring for all national
forests at the present rate for about ten years.

I especially commend to the Congress the facts presented by the commission as to the relation between forests and stream flow
in its bearing upon the importance of the forest lands in national ownership. Without an understanding of this intimate relation
the conservation of both these natural resources must largely fail.

The time has fully arrived for recognizing in the law the responsibility to the community, the state, and the nation which
rests upon the private owners of private lands. The ownership of forest land is a public trust. The man who would so handle
his forest as to cause erosion and to injure stream flow must be not only educated but he must be controlled.

The report of the National Conservation Commission says:

Forests in private ownership cannot be conserved unless they are protected from fire. We need good fire laws, well-enforced.
Fire control is impossible without an adequate force of men whose sole duty is fire patrol during the dangerous season.

I hold as first among the tasks before the states and the nation in their respective shares in forest conservation the organization
of efficient fire patrols and the enactment of good fire laws on the part of the states.

The report says further:

Present tax laws prevent reforestation of cut-over land and the perpetuation of existing forests by use. An annual tax upon
the land itself, exclusive of the timber, and a tax upon the timber when cut is well-adapted to actual conditions of forest
investment and is practicable and certain. It is far better that forest land should pay a moderate tax permanently than that
it should pay an excessive revenue temporarily and then cease to yield at all.

Second only in importance to good fire laws, well-enforced, is the enactment of tax laws which will permit the perpetuation
of existing forests by use.

LANDS

With our increasing population the time is not far distant when the problem of supplying our people with food will become
pressing. The possible additions to our arable area are not great, and it will become necessary to obtain much larger crops
from the land, as is now done in more densely settled countries. To do this, we need better farm practice and better strains
of wheat, corn, and other crop plants, with a reduction in losses from soil erosion and from insects, animals, and other enemies
of agriculture. The United States Department of Agriculture is doing excellent work in these directions and it should be liberally
supported.

The remaining public lands should be classified and the arable lands disposed of to homemakers. In their interest the Timber
and Stone Act and the commutation clause of the Homestead Act should be repealed, and the Desert-Land Law should be modified
in accordance with the recommendations of the Public Lands Commission.

The use of the public grazing lands should be regulated in such ways as to improve and conserve their value.

Rights to the surface of the public land should be separated from rights to forests upon it and to minerals beneath it, and
these should be subject to separate disposal.

The coal, oil, gas, and phosphate rights still remaining with the government should be withdrawn from entry and leased under
conditions favorable for economic development.

The consumption of nearly all of our mineral products is increasing more rapidly than our population. Our mineral waste is
about one-sixth of our product, or nearly $1 million for each working day in the year. The loss of structural materials through
fire is about another million a day. The loss of life in the mines is appalling. The larger part of these losses of life and
property can be avoided.

Our mineral resources are limited in quantity and cannot be increased or reproduced. With the rapidly increasing rate of consumption,
the supply will be exhausted while yet the nation is in its infancy unless better methods are devised or substitutes are found.
Further investigation is urgently needed in order to improve methods and to develop and apply substitutes.

It is of the utmost importance that a Bureau of Mines be established in accordance with the pending bill to reduce the loss
of life in mines and the waste of mineral resources, and to investigate the methods and substitutes for prolonging the duration
of our mineral supplies. Both the need and the public demand for such a bureau are rapidly becoming more urgent. It should
cooperate with the states in supplying data to serve as a basis for state mine regulations. The establishment of this bureau
will mean merely the transfer from other bureaus of work which it is agreed should be transferred and slightly enlarged and
reorganized for these purposes.

CONCLUSIONS

The joint conference already mentioned adopted two resolutions to which I call your special attention. The first was intended
to promote cooperation between the states and the nation upon all of the great questions here discussed. It is as follows:

Resolved, that a joint committee be appointed by the chairman to consist of six members of state conservation commissions and three
members of the National Conservation Commission, whose duty it shall be to prepare and present to the state and national commissions,
and through them to the governors and the President, a plan for united action by all organizations concerned with the conservation
of natural resources. . . .

The second resolution of the joint conference to which I refer calls upon the Congress to provide the means for such cooperation.
The principle of the community of interest among all our people in the great natural resources runs through the report of
the National Conservation Commission and the proceedings of the joint conference. These resources, which form the common basis
of our welfare, can be wisely developed, rightly used, and prudently conserved only by the common action of all the people
acting through their representatives in state and nation. Hence the fundamental necessity for cooperation. Without it we shall
accomplish but little, and that little badly. The resolution follows:

We also especially urge on the Congress of the United States the high desirability of maintaining a national commission on
the conservation of the resources of the country, empowered to cooperate with state commissions to the end that every sovereign
commonwealth and every section of the country may attain the high degree of prosperity and the sureness of perpetuity naturally
arising in the abundant resources and the vigor, intelligence, and patriotism of our people.

In this recommendation I most heartily concur, and I urge that an appropriation of at least $50,000 be made to cover the expenses
of the National Conservation Commission for necessary rent, assistance, and traveling expenses. This is a very small sum.
I know of no other way in which the appropriation of so small a sum would result in so large a benefit to the whole nation.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 11, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 1416-1426.

It is provided by the Constitution that the President shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state
of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

In reviewing the events of the year which has elapsed since the commencement of your sessions, I first call your attention
to the gratifying condition of our foreign affairs. Our intercourse with other powers has continued to be of the most friendly
character.

Such slight differences as have arisen during the year have been already settled or are likely to reach an early adjustment.
The arrest of citizens of the United States in Ireland under recent laws which owe their origin to the disturbed condition
of that country has led to a somewhat extended correspondence with the Government of Great Britain. A disposition to respect
our rights has been practically manifested by the release of the arrested parties.

The claim of this nation in regard to the supervision and control of any interoceanic canal across the American Isthmus has
continued to be the subject of conference.

It is likely that time will be more powerful than discussion in removing the divergence between the two nations whose friendship
is so closely cemented by the intimacy of their relations and the community of their interests.

Our long-established friendliness with Russia has remained unshaken. It has prompted me to proffer the earnest counsels of
this Government that measures be adopted for suppressing the proscription which the Hebrew race in that country has lately
suffered. It has not transpired that any American citizen has been subjected to arrest or injury, but our courteous remonstrance
has nevertheless been courteously received. There is reason to believe that the time is not far distant when Russia will be
able to secure toleration to all faiths within her borders.

At an international convention held at Paris in 1880, and attended by representatives of the United States, an agreement was
reached in respect to the protection of trade-marks, patented articles, and the rights of manufacturing firms and corporations.
The formulating into treaties of the recommendations thus adopted is receiving the attention which it merits.

The protection of submarine cables is a subject now under consideration by an international conference at Paris. Believing
that it is clearly the true policy of this Government to favor the neutralization of this means of intercourse, I requested
our minister to France to attend the convention as a delegate. I also designated two of our eminent scientists to attend as
our representatives at the meeting of an international committee at Paris for considering the adoption of a common unit to
measure electric force.

In view of the frequent occurrence of conferences for the consideration of important matters of common interest to civilized
nations, I respectfully suggest that the Executive be invested by Congress with discretionary powers to send delegates to
such conventions, and that provision be made to defray the expenses incident thereto. . . .

In the interest of justice toward China and Japan, I trust that the question of the return of the indemnity fund to the Governments
of those countries will reach at the present session the satisfactory solution which I have already recommended, and which
has recently been foreshadowed by Congressional discussion.

The treaty lately concluded with Korea awaits the action of the Senate. During the late disturbance in Egypt the timely presence
of American vessels served as a protection to the persons and property of many of our own citizens and of citizens of other
countries, whose governments have expressed their thanks for this assistance.

The recent legislation restricting immigration of laborers from China has given rise to the question whether Chinese proceeding
to or from another country may lawfully pass through our own.

Construing the act of May 6, 1882, in connection with the treaty of November 7, 1880, the restriction would seem to be limited
to Chinese immigrants coming to the United States as laborers, and would not forbid a mere transit across our territory. I
ask the attention of Congress to the subject, for such action, if any, as may be deemed advisable.

This Government has recently had occasion to manifest its interest in the Republic of Liberia by seeking to aid the amicable
settlement of the boundary dispute now pending between that Republic and the British possession of Sierra Leone.

The reciprocity treaty with Hawaii will become terminable after September 9, 1883, on twelve months' notice by either party.
While certain provisions of that compact may have proved onerous, its existence has fostered commercial relations which it
is important to preserve. I suggest, therefore, that early consideration be given to such modifications of the treaty as seem
to be demanded by the interests of our people.

In view of our increasing trade with both Hayti and Santo Domingo, I advise that provision be made for diplomatic intercourse
with the latter by enlarging the scope of the mission at Port au Prince.

I regret that certain claims of American citizens against the Government of Hayti have thus far been urged unavailingly. .
. .

The war between Peru and Bolivia on the one side and Chile on the other began more than three years ago. On the occupation
by Chile in 1880 of all the littoral territory of Bolivia, negotiations for peace were conducted under the direction of the
United States. The allies refused to concede any territory, but Chile has since become master of the whole coast of both countries
and of the capital of Peru. A year since, as you have already been advised by correspondence transmitted to you in January
last, this Government sent a special mission to the belligerent powers to express the hope that Chile would be disposed to
accept a money indemnity for the expenses of the war and to relinquish her demand for a portion of the territory of her antagonist.

This recommendation, which Chile declined to follow, this Government did not assume to enforce; nor can it be enforced without
resort to measures which would be in keeping neither with the temper of our people nor with the spirit of our institutions.

The power of Peru no longer extends over its whole territory, and in the event of our interference to dictate peace would
need to be supplemented by the armies and navies of the United States. Such interference would almost inevitably lead to the
establishment of a protectorate--a result utterly at odds with our past policy, injurious to our present interests, and full
of embarrassments for the future.

For effecting the termination of hostilities upon terms at once just to the victorious nation and generous to its adversaries,
this Government has spared no efforts save such as might involve the complications which I have indicated.

It is greatly to be deplored that Chile seems resolved to exact such rigorous conditions of peace and indisposed to submit
to arbitration the terms of an amicable settlement. No peace is likely to be lasting that is not sufficiently equitable and
just to command the approval of other nations.

About a year since invitations were extended to the nations of this continent to send representatives to a peace congress
to assemble at Washington in November, 1882. The time of meeting was fixed at a period then remote, in the hope, as the invitation
itself declared, that in the meantime the disturbances between the South American Republics would be adjusted. As that expectation
seemed unlikely to be realized, I asked in April last for an expression of opinion from the two Houses of Congress as to the
advisability of holding the proposed convention at the time appointed. This action was prompted in part by doubts which mature
reflection had suggested whether the diplomatic usage and traditions of the Government did not make it fitting that the Executive
should consult the representatives of the people before pursuing a line of policy somewhat novel in its character and far
reaching in its possible consequences. In view of the fact that no action was taken by Congress in the premises and that no
provision had been made for necessary expenses, I subsequently decided to postpone the convocation, and so notified the several
Governments which had been invited to attend.

I am unwilling to dismiss this subject without assuring you of my support of any measures the wisdom of Congress may devise
for the promotion of peace on this continent and throughout the world, and I trust that the time is nigh when, with the universal
assent of civilized peoples, all international differences shall be determined without resort to arms by the benignant processes
of arbitration. . . .

In respect to the coinage of silver dollars and the retirement of silver certificates, I have seen nothing to alter but much
to confirm the sentiments to which I gave expression last year. A comparison between the respective amounts of silver-dollar
circulation on November 1, 1881, and on November 1, 1882, shows a slight increase of a million and a half of dollars; but
during the interval there had been in the whole number coined an increase of twenty-six millions. Of the one hundred and twenty-eight
millions thus far minted, little more than thirty-five millions are in circulation. The mass of accumulated coin has grown
so great that the vault room at present available for storage is scarcely sufficient to contain it. It is not apparent why
it is desirable to continue this coinage, now so enormously in excess of the public demand.

As to the silver certificates, in addition to the grounds which seemed last year to justify their retirement may be mentioned
the effect which is likely to ensue from the supply of gold certificates for whose issuance Congress recently made provision,
and which are now in active circulation.

You can not fail to note with interest the discussion by the Secretary as to the necessity of providing by legislation some
mode of freeing the Treasury of an excess of assets in the event that Congress fails to reach an early agreement for the reduction
of taxation.

I heartily approve the Secretary's recommendation of immediate and extensive reductions in the annual revenues of the Government.

It will be remembered that I urged upon the attention of Congress at its last session the importance of relieving the industry
and enterprise of the country from the pressure of unnecessary taxation. It is one of the tritest maxims of political economy
that all taxes are burdensome, however wisely and prudently imposed; and though there have always been among our people wide
differences of sentiment as to the best methods of raising the national revenues, and, indeed, as to the principles upon which
taxation should be based, there has been substantial accord in the doctrine that only such taxes ought to be levied as are
necessary for a wise and economical administration of the Government. Of late the public revenues have far exceeded that limit,
and unless checked by. appropriate legislation such excess will continue to increase from year to year. For the fiscal year
ended June 30, 1881, the surplus revenue amounted to $100,000,000; for the fiscal year ended on the 30th of June last the
surplus was more than one hundred and forty-five millions.

The report of the Secretary shows what disposition has been made of these moneys. They have not only answered the requirements
of the sinking fund, but have afforded a large balance applicable to other reductions of the public debt.

But I renew the expression of my conviction that such rapid extinguishment of the national indebtedness as is now taking place
is by no means a cause for congratulation; it is a cause rather for serious apprehension.

If it continues, it must speedily be followed by one of the evil results so clearly set forth in the report of the Secretary.

Either the surplus must lie idle in the Treasury or the Government will be forced to buy at market rates its bonds not then
redeemable, and which under such circumstances can not fail to command an enormous premium, or the swollen revenues will be
devoted to extravagant expenditure, which, as experience has taught, is ever the bane of an overflowing treasury.

It was made apparent in the course of the animated discussions which this question aroused at the last session of Congress
that the policy of diminishing the revenue by reducing taxation commanded the general approval of the members of both Houses.

I regret that because of conflicting views as to the best methods by which that policy should be made operative none of its
benefits have as yet been reaped.

In fulfillment of what I deem my constitutional duty, but with little hope that I can make valuable contribution to this vexed
question, I shall proceed to intimate briefly my own views in relation to it.

Upon the showing of our financial condition at the close of the last fiscal year, I felt justified in recommending to Congress
the abolition of all internal revenue taxes except those upon tobacco in its various forms and upon distilled spirits and
fermented liquors, and except also the special tax upon the manufacturers of and dealers in such articles.

I venture now to suggest that unless it shall be ascertained that the probable expenditures of the Government for the coming
year have been underestimated all internal taxes save those which relate to distilled spirits can be prudently abrogated.

Such a course, if accompanied by a simplification of the machinery of collection, which would then be easy of accomplishment,
might reasonably be expected to result in diminishing the cost of such collection by at least $2,500,000 and in the retirement
from office of from 1,500 to 2,000 persons.

The system of excise duties has never commended itself to the favor of the American people, and has never been resorted to
except for supplying deficiencies in the Treasury when, by reason of special exigencies, the duties on imports have proved
inadequate for the needs of the Government. The sentiment of the country doubtless demands that the present excise tax shall
be abolished as soon as such a course can be safely pursued.

It seems to me, however, that, for various reasons, so sweeping a measure as the total abolition of internal taxes would for
the present be an unwise step.

Two of these reasons are deserving of special mention:

First. It is by no means clear that even if the existing system of duties on imports is continued without modification those
duties alone will yield sufficient revenue for all the needs of the Government. It is estimated that $100,000,000 will be
required for pensions during the coming year, and it may well be doubted whether the maximum annual demand for that object
has yet been reached. Uncertainty upon this question would alone justify, in my judgment, the retention for the present of
that portion of the system of internal revenue which is least objectionable to the people.

Second. A total abolition of excise taxes would almost inevitably prove a serious if not an insurmountable obstacle to a thorough
revision of the tariff and to any considerable reduction in import duties.

The present tariff system is in many respects unjust. It makes unequal distributions both of its burdens and its benefits.
This fact was practically recognized by a majority of each House of Congress in the passage of the act creating the Tariff
Commission. The report of that commission will be placed before you at the beginning of this session, and will, I trust, afford
you such information as to the condition and prospects of the various commercial, agricultural, manufacturing, mining, and
other interests of the country and contain such suggestions for statutory revision as will practically aid your action upon
this important subject.

The revenue from customs for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1879, amounted to $137,000,000.

It has in the three succeeding years reached, first, $186,000,000, then $198,000,000, and finally, as has been already stated,
$220,000,000.

The income from this source for the fiscal year which will end on June 30, 1883, will doubtless be considerably in excess
of the sum last mentioned.

If the tax on domestic spirits is to be retained, it is plain, therefore, that large reductions from the customs revenue are
entirely feasible. While recommending this reduction, I am far from advising the abandonment of the policy of so discriminating
in the adjustment of details as to afford aid and protection to domestic labor. But the present system should be so revised
as to equalize the public burden among all classes and occupations and bring it into closer harmony with the present needs
of industry.

Without entering into minute detail, which under present circumstances is quite unnecessary, I recommend an enlargement of
the free list so as to include within it the numerous articles which yield inconsiderable revenue, a simplification of the
complex and inconsistent schedule of duties upon certain manufactures, particularly those of cotton, iron, and steel, and
a substantial reduction of the duties upon those articles and. upon sugar, molasses, silk, wool, and woolen goods.

If a general revision of the tariff shall be found to be impracticable at this session, I express the hope that at least some
of the more conspicuous inequalities of the present law may be corrected before your final adjournment. One of them is specially
referred to by the Secretary. In view of a recent decision of the Supreme Court, the necessity of amending the law by which
the Dutch standard of color is adopted as the test of the saccharine strength of sugars is too obvious to require comment.

From the report of the Secretary of War it appears that the only outbreaks of Indians during the past year occurred in Arizona
and in the southwestern part of New Mexico. They were promptly quelled, and the quiet which has prevailed in all other parts
of the country has permitted such an addition to be made to the military force in the region endangered by the Apaches that
there is little reason to apprehend trouble in the future.

Those parts of the Secretary's report which relate to our seacoast defenses and their armament suggest the gravest reflections.
Our existing fortifications are notoriously inadequate to the defense of the great harbors and cities for whose protection
they were built.

The question of providing an armament suited to our present necessities has been the subject of consideration by a board,
whose report was transmitted to Congress at the last session. Pending the consideration of that report, the War Department
has taken no steps for the manufacture or conversion of any heavy cannon, but the Secretary expresses the hope that authority
and means to begin that important work will be soon provided. I invite the attention of Congress to the propriety of making
more adequate provision for arming and equipping the militia than is afforded by the act of 1808, which is still upon the
statute book. The matter has already been the subject of discussion in the Senate, and a bill which seeks to supply the deficiencies
of existing laws is now upon its calendar.

This leads me to offer a suggestion which I trust will commend itself to the wisdom of Congress. Is it not advisable that
grants of considerable sums of money for diverse and independent schemes of internal improvement should be made the subjects
of separate and distinct legislative enactments? It will scarcely be gainsaid, even by those who favor the most liberal expenditures
for such purposes as are sought to be accomplished by what is commonly called the river and harbor bill, that the practice
of grouping in such a bill appropriations for a great diversity of objects, widely separated either in their nature or in
the locality with which they are concerned, or in both, is one which is much to be deprecated unless it is irremediable. It
inevitably tends to secure the success of the bill as a whole, though many of the items, if separately considered, could scarcely
fail of rejection. By the adoption of the course I have recommended every member of Congress, whenever opportunity should
arise for giving his influence and vote for meritorious appropriations, would be enabled so to do without being called upon
to sanction others undeserving his approval. So also would the Executive be afforded thereby full opportunity to exercise
his constitutional prerogative of opposing whatever appropriations seemed to him objectionable without imperiling the success
of others which commended themselves to his judgment.

It may be urged in opposition to these suggestions that the number of works of internal improvement which are justly entitled
to governmental aid is so great as to render impracticable separate appropriation bills therefor, or even for such comparatively
limited number as make disposition of large sums of money. This objection may be well founded, and, whether it be or not,
the advantages which would be likely to ensue from the adoption of the course I have recommended may perhaps be more effectually
attained by another, which I respectfully submit to Congress as an alternative proposition.

It is provided by the constitutions of fourteen of our States that the executive may disapprove any item or items of a bill
appropriating money, whereupon the part of the bill approved shall be law and the part disapproved shall fail to become law
unless repassed according to the provisions prescribed for the passage of bills over the veto of the executive. The States
wherein some such provision as the foregoing is a part of the fundamental law are Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia. I commend
to your careful consideration the question whether an amendment of the Federal Constitution in the particular indicated would
not afford the best remedy for what is often a grave embrassment both to members of Congress and to the Executive, and is
sometimes a serious public mischief.

The report of the Secretary of the Navy states the movements of the various squadrons during the year, in home and foreign
waters, where our officers and seamen, with such ships as we possess, have continued to illustrate the high character and
excellent discipline of the naval organization.

It appears by the Secretary's report that the available naval force of the United States consists of 37 cruisers, 14 single-turreted
monitors, built during the rebellion, a large number of smoothbore guns and Parrott rifles, and 87 rifled cannon.

The cruising vessels should be gradually replaced by iron or steel ships, the monitors by modern armored vessels, and the
armament by high-power rifled guns.

The reconstruction of our Navy, which was recommended in my last message, was begun by Congress authorizing, in its recent
act, the construction of two large unarmored steel vessels of the character recommended by the late Naval Advisory Board,
and subject to the final approval of a new advisory board to be organized as provided by that act. I call your attention to
the recommendation of the Secretary and the board that authority be given to construct two more cruisers of smaller dimensions
and one fleet dispatch vessel, and that appropriations be made for high-power rifled cannon for the torpedo service and for
other harbor defenses.

Pending the consideration by Congress of the policy to be hereafter adopted in conducting the eight large navy-yards and their
expensive establishments, the Secretary advocates the reduction of expenditures therefor to the lowest possible amounts.

For the purpose of affording the officers and seamen of the Navy opportunities for exercise and discipline in their profession,
under appropriate control and direction, the Secretary advises that the Light-House Service and Coast Survey be transferred,
as now organized, from the Treasury to the Navy Department; and he also suggests, for the reasons which he assigns, that a
similar transfer may wisely be made of the cruising revenue vessels.

The Secretary forcibly depicts the intimate connection and interdependence of the Navy and the commercial marine, and invites
attention to the continued decadence of the latter and the corresponding transfer of our growing commerce to foreign bottoms.

This subject is one of the utmost importance to the national welfare. Methods of reviving American shipbuilding and of restoring
the United States flag in the ocean carrying trade should receive the immediate attention of Congress. We have mechanical
skill and abundant material for the manufacture of modern iron steamships in fair competition with our commercial rivals.
Our disadvantage in building ships is the greater cost of labor, and in sailing them, higher taxes, and greater interest on
capital, while the ocean highways are already monopolized by our formidable competitors. These obstacles should in some way
be overcome, and for our rapid communication with foreign lands we should not continue to depend wholly upon vessels built
in the yards of other countries and sailing under foreign flags. With no United States steamers on the principal ocean lines
or in any foreign ports, our facilities for extending our commerce are greatly restricted, while the nations which build and
sail the ships and carry the mails and passengers obtain thereby conspicuous advantages in increasing their trade.

The report of the Department of Justice brings anew to your notice the necessity of enlarging the present system of Federal
jurisprudence so as effectually to answer the requirements of the ever-increasing litigation with which it is called upon
to deal.

The Attorney-General renews the suggestions of his predecessor that in the interests of justice better provision than the
existing laws afford should be made in certain judicial districts for fixing the fees of witnesses and jurors.

In my message of December last I referred to pending criminal proceedings growing out of alleged frauds in what is known as
the star-route service of the Post-Office Department, and advised you that I had enjoined upon the Attorney-General and associate
counsel, to whom the interests of the Government were intrusted, the duty of prosecuting with the utmost vigor of the law
all persons who might be found chargeable with those offenses. A trial of one of these cases has since occurred. It occupied
for many weeks the attention of the supreme court of this District and was conducted with great zeal and ability. It resulted
in a disagreement of the jury, but the cause has been again placed upon the calendar and will shortly be retried. If any guilty
persons shall finally escape punishment for their offenses, it will not be for lack of diligent and earnest efforts on the
part of the prosecution.

I trust that some agreement may be reached which will speedily enable Congress, with the concurrence of the Executive, to
afford the commercial community the benefits of a national bankrupt law.

The report of the Secretary of the Interior, with its accompanying documents, presents a full statement of the varied operations
of that Department. In respect to Indian affairs nothing has occurred which has changed or seriously modified the views to
which I devoted much space in a former communication to Congress. I renew the recommendations therein contained as to extending
to the Indian the protection of the law, allotting land in severalty to such as desire it, and making suitable provision for
the education of youth. Such provision, as the Secretary forcibly maintains, will prove unavailing unless it is broad enough
to include all those who are able and willing to make use of it, and should not solely relate to intellectual training, but
also to instruction in such manual labor and simple industrial arts as can be made practically available.

Among other important subjects which are included within the Secretary's report, and which will doubtless furnish occasion
for Congressional action, may be mentioned the neglect of the railroad companies to which large grants of land were made by
the acts of 1862 and 1864 to take title thereto, and their consequent inequitable exemption from local taxation.

No survey of our material condition can fail to suggest inquiries as to the moral and intellectual progress of the people.

The census returns disclose an alarming state of illiteracy in certain portions of the country, where the provision for schools
is grossly inadequate. It is a momentous question for the decision of Congress whether immediate and substantial aid should
not be extended by the General Government for supplementing the efforts of private beneficence and of State and Territorial
legislation in behalf of education.

The regulation of interstate commerce has already been the subject of your deliberations. One of the incidents of the marvelous
extension of the railway system of the country has been the adoption of such measures by the corporations which own or control
the roads as have tended to impair the advantages of healthful competition and to make hurtful discriminations in the adjustment
of freightage.

These inequalities have been corrected in several of the States by appropriate legislation, the effect of which is necessarily
restricted to the limits of their own territory.

So far as such mischiefs affect commerce between the States or between any one of the States and a foreign country, they are
subjects of national concern, and Congress alone can afford relief.

The results which have thus far attended the enforcement of the recent statute for the suppression of polygamy in the Territories
are reported by the Secretary of the Interior. It is not probable that any additional legislation in this regard will be deemed
desirable until the effect of existing laws shall be more closely observed and studied.

I congratulate you that the commissioners under whose supervision those laws have been put in operation are encouraged to
believe that the evil at which they are aimed may be suppressed without resort to such radical measures as in some quarters
have been thought indispensable for success.

The close relation of the General Government to the Territories preparing to be great States may well engage your special
attention. It is there that the Indian disturbances mainly occur and that polygamy has found room for its growth. I can not
doubt that a careful survey of Territorial legislation would be of the highest utility. Life and property would become more
secure. The liability of outbreaks between Indians and whites would be lessened. The public domain would be more securely
guarded and better progress be made in the instruction of the young.

Alaska is still without any form of civil government. If means were provided for the education of its people and for the protection
of their lives and property, the immense resources of the region would invite permanent settlements and open new fields for
industry and enterprise.

The report of the Commissioner of Agriculture presents an account of the labors of that Department during the past year and
includes information of much interest to the general public.

The condition of the forests of the country and the wasteful manner in which their destruction is taking place give cause
for serious apprehension. Their action in protecting the earth's surface, in modifying the extremes of climate, and in regulating
and sustaining the flow of springs and streams is now well understood, and their importance in relation to the growth and
prosperity of the country can not be safely disregarded. They are fast disappearing before destructive fires and the legitimate
requirements of our increasing population, and their total extinction can not be long delayed unless better methods than now
prevail shall be adopted for their protection and cultivation. The attention of Congress is invited to the necessity of additional
legislation to secure the preservation of the valuable forests still remaining on the public domain, especially in the extreme
Western States and Territories, where the necessity for their preservation is greater than in less mountainous regions, and
where the prevailing dryness of the climate renders their restoration, if they are once destroyed, well-nigh impossible.

The communication which I made to Congress at its first session, in December last, contained a somewhat full statement of
my sentiments in relation to the principles and rules which ought to govern appointments to public service.

Referring to the various plans which had theretofore been the subject of discussion in the National Legislature (plans which
in the main were modeled upon the system which obtains in Great Britain, but which lacked certain of the prominent features
whereby that system is distinguished), I felt bound to intimate my doubts whether they, or any of them, would afford adequate
remedy for the evils which they aimed to correct.

I declared, nevertheless, that if the proposed measures should prove acceptable to Congress they would receive the unhesitating
support of the Executive.

Since these suggestions were submitted for your consideration there has been no legislation upon the subject to which they
relate, but there has meanwhile been an increase in the public interest in that subject, and the people of the country, apparently
without distinction of party, have in various ways and upon frequent occasions given expression to their earnest wish for
prompt and definite action. In my judgment such action should no longer be postponed.

I may add that my own sense of its pressing importance has been quickened by observation of a practical phase of the matter,
to which attention has more than once been called by my predecessors.

The civil list now comprises about 100,000 persons, far the larger part of whom must, under the terms of the Constitution,
he selected by the President either directly or through his own appointees.

In the early years of the administration of the Government the personal direction of appointments to the civil service may
not have been an irksome task for the Executive, but now that the burden has increased fully a hundredfold it has become greater
thin he ought to bear, and it necessarily diverts his time and attention from the proper discharge of other duties no less
delicate and responsible, and which in the very nature of things can not be delegated to other hands.

In the judgment of not a few who have given study and reflection to this matter, the nation has outgrown the provisions which
the Constitution has established for filling the minor offices in the public service.

But whatever may be thought of the wisdom or expediency of changing the fundamental law in this regard, it is certain that
much relief may be afforded, not only to the President and to the heads of the Departments, but to Senators and Representatives
in Congress, by discreet legislation. They would be protected in a great measure by the bill now pending before the Senate,
or by any other which should embody its important features, from the pressure of personal importunity and from the labor of
examining conflicting claims and pretensions of candidates.

I trust that before the close of the present session some decisive action may be taken for the correction of the evils which
inhere in the present methods of appointment, and I assure you of my hearty cooperation in any measures which are likely to
conduce to that end.

As to the most appropriate term and tenure of the official life of the subordinate employees of the Government, it seems to
be generally agreed that, whatever their extent or character, the one should be definite and the other stable, and that neither
should be regulated by zeal in the service of party or fidelity to the fortunes of an individual.

It matters little to the people at large what competent person is at the head of this department or of that bureau if they
feel assured that the removal of one and the accession of another will not involve the retirement of honest and faithful subordinates
whose duties are purely administrative and have no legitimate connection with the triumph of any political principles or the
success of any political party or faction. It is to this latter class of officers that the Senate bill, to which I have already
referred, exclusively applies.

While neither that bill nor any other prominent scheme for improving the civil service concerns the higher grade of officials,
who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, I feel bound to correct a prevalent misapprehension as to
the frequency with which the present Executive has displaced the incumbent of an office and appointed another in his stead.

It has been repeatedly alleged that he has in this particular signally departed from the course which has been pursued under
recent Administrations of the Government. The facts are as follows:

The whole number of Executive appointments during the four years immediately preceding Mr. Garfield's accession to the Presidency
was 2,696. Of this number 244, or 9 per cent, involved the removal of previous incumbents.

The ratio of removals to the whole number of appointments was much the same during each of those four years.

In the first year, with 790 appointments, there were 74 removals, or 9.3 per cent; in the second, with 917 appointments, there
were 85 removals, or 8.5 per cent; in the third, with 480 appointments, there were 48 removals, or 10 per cent; in the fourth,
with 429 appointments, there were 37 removals, or 8.6 per cent. In the four months of President Garfield's Administration
there were 390 appointments and 89 removals, or 22.7 per cent. Precisely the same number of removals (89) has taken place
in the fourteen months which have since elapsed, but they constitute only 7.8 per cent of the whole number of appointments
(1,118) within that period and less than 2.6 of the entire list of officials (3,459), exclusive of the Army and Navy, which
is filled by Presidential appointment.

I declare my approval of such legislation as may be found necessary for supplementing the existing provisions of law in relation
to political assessments.

In July last I authorized a public announcement that employees of the Government should regard themselves as at liberty to
exercise their pleasure in making or refusing to make political contributions, and that their action in that regard would
in no manner affect their official status.

In this announcement I acted upon the view, which I had always maintained and still maintain, that a public officer should
be as absolutely free as any other citizen to give or to withhold a contribution for the aid of the political party of his
choice. It has, however, been urged, and doubtless not without foundation in fact, that by solicitation of official superiors
and by other modes such contributions have at times been obtained from persons whose only motive for giving has been the fear
of what might befall them if they refused. It goes without saying that such contributions are not voluntary, and in my judgment
their collection should be prohibited by law. A bill which will effectually suppress them will receive my cordial approval.

I hope that, however numerous and urgent may be the demands upon your attention, the interests of this District will not be
forgotten.

The denial to its residents of the great right of suffrage in all its relations to national, State, and municipal action imposes
upon Congress the duty of affording them the best administration which its wisdom can devise.

The report of the District Commissioners indicates certain measures whose adoption would seem to be very desirable. 1 instance
in particular those which relate to arrears of taxes, to steam railroads, and to assessments of real property.

Among the questions which have been the topic of recent debate in the halls of Congress none are of greater gravity than those
relating to the ascertainment of the vote for Presidential electors and the intendment of the Constitution in its provisions
for devolving Executive functions upon the Vice-President when the President suffers from inability to discharge the powers
and duties of his office.

I trust that no embarrassments may result from a failure to determine these questions before another national election.

The closing year has been replete with blessings, for which we owe to the Giver of All Good our reverent acknowledgment. For
the uninterrupted harmony of our foreign relations, for the decay of sectional animosities, for the exuberance of our harvests
and the triumphs of our mining and manufacturing industries, for the prevalence of health, the spread of intelligence, and
the conservation of the public credit, for the growth of the country in all the elements of national greatness--for these
and countless other blessings we should rejoice and be glad. I trust that under the inspiration of this great prosperity our
counsels may be harmonious, and that the dictates of prudence, patriotism, justice, and economy may lead to the adoption of
measures in which the Congress and the Executive may heartily unite.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1787-1897, James D. Richardson, ed., Washington, 1896-1899, Vol. X.

In the years following the Revolution, many Americans were willing to assert cultural as well as political independence from
the Old World. Their notion was that since America was separated by 3,000 miles from Europe and had her own destiny, she should
develop indigenous institutions in accordance with her own ideals. Higher education for an American, Jefferson felt, ought to take place in his own country, not in some foreign land whose influence might weaken
his native ties. In a letter to John Banister of October 15, 1785, Jefferson made plain what to him were the differences between
educating Americans at home and abroad.

I should sooner have answered the paragraph in your letter of September 19, respecting the best seminary for the eduction
of youth in Europe, but that it was necessary for me to make inquiries on the subject. The result of these has been to consider
the competition as resting between Geneva and Rome.

They are equally cheap and probably are equal in the course of education pursued. The advantage of Geneva is that students
acquire there the habit of speaking French. The advantages of Rome are the acquiring a local knowledge of a spot so classical
and so celebrated; the acquiring the true pronunciation of the Latin language; a just taste in the fine arts, more particularly
those of painting, sculpture, architecture, and music; a familiarity with those objects and processes of agriculture, which
experience has shown best adapted to a climate like ours; and lastly, the advantage of a fine climate for health. It is probable,
too, that by being boarded in a French family, the habit of speaking that language may be obtained.

I do not count on any advantage to be derived in Geneva, from a familiar acquaintance with the principles of that government.
The late revolution has rendered it a tyrannical aristocracy, more likely to give ill than good ideas to an American. I think
the balance in favor of Rome. Pisa is sometimes spoken of as a place of education. But it does not offer the first and third
of the advantages of Rome.

But why send an American youth to Europe for education? What are the objects of a useful American education? Classical knowledge;
modern languages, chiefly French, Spanish, and Italian; mathematics; natural philosophy; natural history; civil history; and
ethics. In natural philosophy, I mean to include chemistry and agriculture, and in natural history, to include botany, as
well as the other branches of those departments. It is true that the habit of speaking the modern languages cannot be so well
acquired in America; but every other article can be as well acquired at William and Mary College as at any place in Europe.
When college education is done with and a young man is to prepare himself for public life, he must cast his eyes (for America)
either on law or physic [medicine]. For the former, where can he apply so advantageously as to Mr. Wythe? For the latter,
he must come to Europe. The medical class of students, therefore, is the only one which need come to Europe.

Let us view the disadvantages of sending a youth to Europe. To enumerate them all would require a volume. I will select a
few. If he goes to England, he learns drinking, horse racing, and boxing. These are the peculiarities of English education.
The following circumstances are common to education in that and the other countries of Europe. He acquires a fondness for
European luxury and dissipation, and a contempt for the simplicity of his own country; he is fascinated with the privileges
of the European aristocrats, and sees with abhorrence the lovely equality which the poor enjoy with the rich in his own country;
he contracts a partiality for aristocracy or monarchy; he forms foreign friendships which will never be useful to him, and
loses the seasons of life for forming in his own country those friendships which, of all others, are the most faithful and
permanent. He is led by the strongest of all the human passions into a spirit for female intrigue, destructive of his own
and others' happiness, or a passion for whores, destructive of his health; and, in both cases, learns to consider fidelity
to the marriage bed as an ungentlemanly practice and inconsistent with happiness. He recollects the voluptuary dress and arts
of the European women, and pities and despises the chaste affections and simplicity of those of his own country; he retains
through life a fond recollection and a hankering after those places which were the scenes of his first pleasures and of his
first connections.

He returns to his own country a foreigner, unacquainted with the practices of domestic economy necessary to preserve him from
ruin, speaking and writing his native tongue as a foreigner, and therefore unqualified to obtain those distinctions which
eloquence of the pen and tongue insures in a free country; for I would observe to you that what is called style in writing
or speaking is formed very early in life, while the imagination is warm and impressions are permanent. I am of opinion that
there never was an instance of a man's writing or speaking his native tongue with elegance who passed from fifteen to twenty
years of age out of the country where it was spoken. Thus, no instance exists of a person's writing two languages perfectly.
That will always appear to be his native language which was most familiar to him in his youth.

It appears to me, then, that an American coming to Europe for education loses in his knowledge, in his morals, in his health,
in his habits, and in his happiness. I had entertained only doubts on this head before I came to Europe; what I see and hear
since I came here proves more than I had even suspected. Cast your eye over America. Who are the men of most learning, of
most eloquence, most beloved by their countrymen and most trusted and promoted by them? They are those who have been educated
among them, and whose manners, morals, and habits are perfectly homogeneous with those of the country.

Did you expect by so short a question to draw such a sermon on yourself? I dare say you did not. But the consequences of foreign
education are alarming to me as an American. I sin, therefore, through zeal, whenever I enter on the subject. You are sufficiently
American to pardon me for it.

This occasion is not alone the administration of the most sacred oath which can be assumed by an American citizen. It is a
dedication and consecration under God to the highest office in service of our people. I assume this trust in the humility
of knowledge that only through the guidance of Almighty Providence can I hope to discharge its ever-increasing burdens.

It is in keeping with tradition throughout our history that I should express simply and directly the opinions which I hold
concerning some of the matters of present importance.

Our Progress

If we survey the situation of our Nation both at home and abroad, we find many satisfactions; we find some causes for concern.
We have emerged from the losses of the Great War and the reconstruction following it with increased virility and strength.
From this strength we have contributed to the recovery and progress of the world. What America has done has given renewed
hope and courage to all who have faith in government by the people. In the large view, we have reached a higher degree of
comfort and security than ever existed before in the history of the world. Through liberation from widespread poverty we have
reached a higher degree of individual freedom than ever before. The devotion to and concern for our institutions are deep
and sincere. We are steadily building a new race-a new civilization great in its own attainments. The influence and high purposes
of our Nation are respected among the peoples of the world. We aspire to distinction in the world, but to a distinction based
upon confidence in our sense of justice as well as our accomplishments within our own borders and in our own lives. For wise
guidance in this great period of recovery the Nation is deeply indebted to Calvin Coolidge.

But all this majestic advance should not obscure the constant dangers from which self-government must be safeguarded. The
strong man must at all times be alert to the attack of insidious disease.

The Failure of Our System of Criminal Justice

The most malign of all these dangers today is disregard and disobedience of law. Crime is increasing. Confidence in rigid
and speedy justice is decreasing. I am not prepared to believe that this indicates any decay in the moral fiber of the American
people. I am not prepared to believe that it indicates an impotence of the Federal Government to enforce its laws.

It is only in part due to the additional burdens imposed upon our judicial system by the eighteenth amendment. The problem
is much wider than that. Many influences had increasingly complicated and weakened our law enforcement organization long before
the adoption of the eighteenth amendment.

To reestablish the vigor and effectiveness of law enforcement we must critically consider the entire Federal machinery of
justice, the redistribution of its functions, the simplification of its procedure, the provision of additional special tribunals,
the better selection of juries, and the more effective organization of our agencies of investigation and prosecution that
justice may be sure and that it may be swift. While the authority of the Federal Government extends to but part of our vast
system of national, State, and local justice, yet the standards which the Federal Government establishes have the most profound
influence upon the whole structure.

We are fortunate in the ability and integrity of our Federal judges and attorneys. But the system which these officers are
called upon to administer is in many respects ill adapted to present-day conditions. Its intricate and involved rules of procedure
have become the refuge of both big and little criminals. There is a belief abroad that by invoking technicalities, subterfuge,
and delay, the ends of justice may be thwarted by those who can pay the cost.

Reform, reorganization and strengthening of our whole judicial and enforcement system, both in civil and criminal sides, have
been advocated for years by statesmen, judges, and bar associations. First steps toward that end should not longer be delayed.
Rigid and expeditious justice is the first safeguard of freedom, the basis of all ordered liberty, the vital force of progress.
It must not come to be in our Republic that it can be defeated by the indifference of the citizen, by exploitation of the
delays and entanglements of the law, or by combinations of criminals. Justice must not fail because the agencies of enforcement
are either delinquent or inefficiently organized. To consider these evils, to find their remedy, is the most sore necessity
of our times.

Enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment Of the undoubted abuses which have grown up under the eighteenth amendment, part are
due to the causes I have just mentioned; but part are due to the failure of some States to accept their share of responsibility
for concurrent enforcement and to the failure of many State and local officials to accept the obligation under their oath
of office zealously to enforce the laws. With the failures from these many causes has come a dangerous expansion in the criminal
elements who have found enlarged opportunities in dealing in illegal liquor.

But a large responsibility rests directly upon our citizens. There would be little traffic in illegal liquor if only criminals
patronized it. We must awake to the fact that this patronage from large numbers of law-abiding citizens is supplying the rewards
and stimulating crime.

I have been selected by you to execute and enforce the laws of the country. I propose to do so to the extent of my own abilities,
but the measure of success that the Government shall attain will depend upon the moral support which you, as citizens, extend.
The duty of citizens to support the laws of the land is coequal with the duty of their Government to enforce the laws which
exist. No greater national service can be given by men and women of good will-who, I know, are not unmindful of the responsibilities
of citizenship-than that they should, by their example, assist in stamping out crime and outlawry by refusing participation
in and condemning all transactions with illegal liquor. Our whole system of self-government will crumble either if officials
elect what laws they will enforce or citizens elect what laws they will support. The worst evil of disregard for some law
is that it destroys respect for all law. For our citizens to patronize the violation of a particular law on the ground that
they are opposed to it is destructive of the very basis of all that protection of life, of homes and property which they rightly
claim under other laws. If citizens do not like a law, their duty as honest men and women is to discourage its violation;
their right is openly to work for its repeal.

To those of criminal mind there can be no appeal but vigorous enforcement of the law. Fortunately they are but a small percentage
of our people. Their activities must be stopped.

A National Investigation

I propose to appoint a national commission for a searching investigation of the whole structure of our Federal system of jurisprudence,
to include the method of enforcement of the eighteenth amendment and the causes of abuse under it. Its purpose will be to
make such recommendations for reorganization of the administration of Federal laws and court procedure as may be found desirable.
In the meantime it is essential that a large part of the enforcement activities be transferred from the Treasury Department
to the Department of Justice as a beginning of more effective organization.

The Relation of Government to Business

The election has again confirmed the determination of the American people that regulation of private enterprise and not Government
ownership or operation is the course rightly to be pursued in our relation to business. In recent years we have established
a differentiation in the whole method of business regulation between the industries which produce and distribute commodities
on the one hand and public utilities on the other. In the former, our laws insist upon effective competition; in the latter,
because we substantially confer a monopoly by limiting competition, we must regulate their services and rates. The rigid enforcement
of the laws applicable to both groups is the very base of equal opportunity and freedom from domination for all our people,
and it is just as essential for the stability and prosperity of business itself as for the protection of the public at large.
Such regulation should be extended by the Federal Government within the limitations of the Constitution and only when the
individual States are without power to protect their citizens through their own authority. On the other hand, we should be
fearless when the authority rests only in the Federal Government.

Cooperation by the Government

The larger purpose of our economic thought should be to establish more firmly stability and security of business and employment
and thereby remove poverty still further from our borders. Our people have in recent years developed a new-found capacity
for cooperation among themselves to effect high purposes in public welfare. It is an advance toward the highest conception
of self-government. Self-government does not and should not imply the use of political agencies alone. Progress is born of
cooperation in the community-not from governmental restraints. The Government should assist and encourage these movements
of collective self-help by itself cooperating with them. Business has by cooperation made great progress in the advancement
of service, in stability, in regularity of employment and in the correction of its own abuses. Such progress, however, can
continue only so long as business manifests its respect for law.

There is an equally important field of cooperation by the Federal Government with the multitude of agencies, State, municipal
and private, in the systematic development of those processes which directly affect public health, recreation, education,
and the home. We have need further to perfect the means by which Government can be adapted to human service.

Education

Although education is primarily a responsibility of the States and local communities, and rightly so, yet the Nation as a
whole is vitally concerned in its development everywhere to the highest standards and to complete universality. Self-government
can succeed only through an instructed electorate. Our objective is not simply to overcome illiteracy. The Nation has marched
far beyond that. The more complex the problems of the Nation become, the greater is the need for more and more advanced instruction.
Moreover, as our numbers increase and as our life expands with science and invention, we must discover more and more leaders
for every walk of life. We can not hope to succeed in directing this increasingly complex civilization unless we can draw
all the talent of leadership from the whole people. One civilization after another has been wrecked upon the attempt to secure
sufficient leadership from a single group or class. If we would prevent the growth of class distinctions and would constantly
refresh our leadership with the ideals of our people, we must draw constantly from the general mass. The full opportunity
for every boy and girl to rise through the selective processes of education can alone secure to us this leadership.

Public Health

In public health the discoveries of science have opened a new era. Many sections of our country and many groups of our citizens
suffer from diseases the eradication of which are mere matters of administration and moderate expenditure. Public health service
should be as fully organized and as universally incorporated into our governmental system as is public education. The returns
are a thousand fold in economic benefits, and infinitely more in reduction of suffering and promotion of human happiness.

World Peace

The United States fully accepts the profound truth that our own progress, prosperity, and peace are interlocked with the progress,
prosperity, and peace of all humanity. The whole world is at peace. The dangers to a continuation of this peace to-day are
largely the fear and suspicion which still haunt the world. No suspicion or fear can be rightly directed toward our country.

Those who have a true understanding of America know that we have no desire for territorial expansion, for economic or other
domination of other peoples. Such purposes are repugnant to our ideals of human freedom. Our form of government is ill adapted
to the responsibilities which inevitably follow permanent limitation of the independence of other peoples. Superficial observers
seem to find no destiny for our abounding increase in population, in wealth and power except that of imperialism. They fail
to see that the American people are engrossed in the building for themselves of a new economic system, a new social system,
a new political system all of which are characterized by aspirations of freedom of opportunity and thereby are the negation
of imperialism. They fail to realize that because of our abounding prosperity our youth are pressing more and more into our
institutions of learning; that our people are seeking a larger vision through art, literature, science, and travel; that they
are moving toward stronger moral and spiritual life-that from these things our sympathies are broadening beyond the bounds
of our Nation and race toward their true expression in a real brotherhood of man. They fail to see that the idealism of America
will lead it to no narrow or selfish channel, but inspire it to do its full share as a nation toward the advancement of civilization.
It will do that not by mere declaration but by taking a practical part in supporting all useful international undertakings.
We not only desire peace with the world, but to see peace maintained throughout the world. We wish to advance the reign of
justice and reason toward the extinction of force.

The recent treaty for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy sets an advanced standard in our conception
of the relations of nations. Its acceptance should pave the way to greater limitation of armament, the offer of which we sincerely
extend to the world. But its full realization also implies a greater and greater perfection in the instrumentalities for pacific
settlement of controversies between nations. In the creation and use of these instrumentalities we should support every sound
method of conciliation, arbitration, and judicial settlement. American statesmen were among the first to propose and they
have constantly urged upon the world, the establishment of a tribunal for the settlement of controversies of a justiciable
character. The Permanent Court of International Justice in its major purpose is thus peculiarly identified with American ideals
and with American statesmanship. No more potent instrumentality for this purpose has ever been conceived and no other is practicable
of establishment. The reservations placed upon our adherence should not be misinterpreted. The United States seeks by these
reservations no special privilege or advantage but only to clarify our relation to advisory opinions and other matters which
are subsidiary to the major purpose of the court. The way should, and I believe will, be found by which we may take our proper
place in a movement so fundamental to the progress of peace.

Our people have determined that we should make no political engagements such as membership in the League of Nations, which
may commit us in advance as a nation to become involved in the settlements of controversies between other countries. They
adhere to the belief that the independence of America from such obligations increases its ability and availability for service
in all fields of human progress.

I have lately returned from a journey among our sister Republics of the Western Hemisphere. I have received unbounded hospitality
and courtesy as their expression of friendliness to our country. We are held by particular bonds of sympathy and common interest
with them. They are each of them building a racial character and a culture which is an impressive contribution to human progress.
We wish only for the maintenance of their independence, the growth of their stability, and their prosperity. While we have
had wars in the Western Hemisphere, yet on the whole the record is in encouraging contrast with that of other parts of the
world. Fortunately the New World is largely free from the inheritances of fear and distrust which have so troubled the Old
World. We should keep it so.

It is impossible, my countrymen, to speak of peace without profound emotion. In thousands of homes in America, in millions
of homes around the world, there are vacant chairs. It would be a shameful confession of our unworthiness if it should develop
that we have abandoned the hope for which all these men died. Surely civilization is old enough, surely mankind is mature
enough so that we ought in our own lifetime to find a way to permanent peace. Abroad, to west and east, are nations whose
sons mingled their blood with the blood of our sons on the battlefields. Most of these nations have contributed to our race,
to our culture, our knowledge, and our progress. From one of them we derive our very language and from many of them much of
the genius of our institutions. Their desire for peace is as deep and sincere as our own.

Peace can be contributed to by respect for our ability in defense. Peace can be promoted by the limitation of arms and by
the creation of the instrumentalities for peaceful settlement of controversies. But it will become a reality only through
self-restraint and active effort in friendliness and helpfulness. I covet for this administration a record of having further
contributed to advance the cause of peace.

Party Responsibilities

In our form of democracy the expression of the popular will can be effected only through the instrumentality of political
parties. We maintain party government not to promote intolerant partisanship but because opportunity must be given for expression
of the popular will, and organization provided for the execution of its mandates and for accountability of government to the
people. It follows that the government both in the executive and the legislative branches must carry out in good faith the
platforms upon which the party was entrusted with power. But the government is that of the whole people; the party is the
instrument through which policies are determined and men chosen to bring them into being. The animosities of elections should
have no place in our Government, for government must concern itself alone with the common weal.

Special Session of the Congress

Action upon some of the proposals upon which the Republican Party was returned to power, particularly further agricultural
relief and limited changes in the tariff, cannot in justice to our farmers, our labor, and our manufacturers be postponed.
I shall therefore request a special session of Congress for the consideration of these two questions. I shall deal with each
of them upon the assembly of the Congress.

Other Mandates from the Election

It appears to me that the more important further mandates from the recent election were the maintenance of the integrity of
the Constitution; the vigorous enforcement of the laws; the continuance of economy in public expenditure; the continued regulation
of business to prevent domination in the community; the denial of ownership or operation of business by the Government in
competition with its citizens; the avoidance of policies which would involve us in the controversies of foreign nations; the
more effective reorganization of the departments of the Federal Government; the expansion of public works; and the promotion
of welfare activities affecting education and the home.

These were the more tangible determinations of the election, but beyond them was the confidence and belief of the people that
we would not neglect the support of the embedded ideals and aspirations of America. These ideals and aspirations are the touchstones
upon which the day-to-day administration and legislative acts of government must be tested. More than this, the Government
must, so far as lies within its proper powers, give leadership to the realization of these ideals and to the fruition of these
aspirations. No one can adequately reduce these things of the spirit to phrases or to a catalogue of definitions. We do know
what the attainments of these ideals should be: The preservation of self-government and its full foundations in local government;
the perfection of justice whether in economic or in social fields; the maintenance of ordered liberty; the denial of domination
by any group or class; the building up and preservation of equality of opportunity; the stimulation of initiative and individuality;
absolute integrity in public affairs; the choice of officials for fitness to office; the direction of economic progress toward
prosperity for the further lessening of poverty; the freedom of public opinion; the sustaining of education and of the advancement
of knowledge; the growth of religious spirit and the tolerance of all faiths; the strengthening of the home; the advancement
of peace.

There is no short road to the realization of these aspirations. Ours is a progressive people, but with a determination that
progress must be based upon the foundation of experience. Ill-considered remedies for our faults bring only penalties after
them. But if we hold the faith of the men in our mighty past who created these ideals, we shall leave them heightened and
strengthened for our children.

Conclusion

This is not the time and place for extended discussion. The questions before our country are problems of progress to higher
standards; they are not the problems of degeneration. They demand thought and they serve to quicken the conscience and enlist
our sense of responsibility for their settlement. And that responsibility rests upon you, my countrymen, as much as upon those
of us who have been selected for office.

Ours is a land rich in resources; stimulating in its glorious beauty; filled with millions of happy homes; blessed with comfort
and opportunity. In no nation are the institutions of progress more advanced. In no nation are the fruits of accomplishment
more secure. In no nation is the government more worthy of respect. No country is more loved by its people. I have an abiding
faith in their capacity, integrity, and high purpose. I have no fears for the future of our country. It is bright with hope.

In the presence of my countrymen, mindful of the solemnity of this occasion, knowing what the task means and the responsibility
which it involves, I beg your tolerance, your aid, and your cooperation. I ask the help of Almighty God in this service to
my country to which you have called me.

The campaign of 1912 pitted four remarkable men against each other for the presidency, all of them with significant reform
backgrounds. William Howard Taft, the incumbent, had the support of the regular Republicans and of some of the old-guard Progressives.
Theodore Roosevelt was backed by most of the Progressives, who had banded together to organize the rump Republican "Bull Moose"
Party. Eugene Debs was the Socialist candidate. And Woodrow Wilson, the enlightened governor of New Jersey, ex-professor of
political science and ex-president of Princeton University, was the choice of the Democrats. Failing at first to find an issue
with which to stir the voters, Wilson was persuaded by Louis D. Brandeis to stress the problem of the trusts, and with his
oratorical gifts he was able to turn it into what was almost a one-man crusade. A portion of Wilson's campaign speech at Lincoln,
Nebraska, delivered on October 5, 1912, is reprinted here.

We are not going to discuss tonight the sympathies, the susceptibilities, the enthusiasms of the several men who are seeking
your suffrages for President of the United States. I am perfectly ready to believe and will admit for the sake of argument
that Mr. Roosevelt's heart and soul are committed to that part of the third-term program which contains those hopeful plans
of human betterment in which so many noble men and women in this country have enlisted their sympathies and their energies.

I am not here to criticize anybody who has been drawn to that party because of that part of the program. But I want to call
their attention to the fact that you can't have a program that you can carry out through a resisting and unsuitable medium,
and that the thing that it is absolutely necessary for every candid voter to remember with regard to the third party is that
the means of government, the means of getting the things that this country needs, are exactly the same on that side that they
are on the side where Mr. Taft seeks the suffrages of the country.

Because, while the party of Mr. Taft says in its platform that monopoly ought not to exist, the section of the Republican
Party that is following Mr. Roosevelt subscribes to the statement that monopoly ought to be adopted by the law, and by regulation
should be the governing force in the development of American industry. So that all that the third party asks of the monopolists
is that they should cooperate, and the only hope of a program of human uplift from that party is that the monopolists will
cooperate.

Have you got any hopes in that direction? Don't you know what the Republican Party has provided you with up to this time?
I have taken special pains to clear from my own mind, at any rate, the Republican conception of government. That conception
is that the people cannot organize their opinion in such fashion as to control their own government. And that, therefore,
it is necessary constantly to consult those whose material interests in the development of the country are larger than anybody
else's, and then, through the hands of these trustees, administer the government, not through the people but for the people.

I am perfectly ready to believe -- knowing some of the men concerned as I do, I must believe --that a great many men now engaged
in the promotion of monopoly in this country really wish to see the United States prosperous, and really desire to adopt the
means that will make it prosperous. But they are not willing to let anybody else yield the means of prosperity except themselves.
I wonder at the frame of mind which makes them believe that they are the trustees of political discretion in this country,
but I am willing to admit for the sake of argument that that is their candid and deliberate judgment.

What we have to fight, therefore, is not a body of deliberate enemies, it may be, but a body of mistaken men. And what I want
to point out to you is that Mr. Roosevelt subscribes to the judgment of these mistaken men as to the influences which should
govern America. That is the serious part of it. Mr. Roosevelt's judgment has been captured. Mr. Roosevelt's idea of the way
in which the industries of this country ought to be controlled has been captured. He does not propose to set us free. He proposes
to use monopoly in order to make us happy. And the project is one of those projects which all history cries out against as
impossible.

The Democratic platform is the only platform which says that private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable, and any man
who does not subscribe to that opinion does not know the way to set the people of the United States free, and to serve humanity.
All that Mr. Roosevelt is asking you to do is to elect him president of the board of trustees. I do not care how wise, how
patriotic the trustees may be; I have never heard of any group of men in whose hands I am willing to put the liberties of
America in trust. And, therefore, I am not in this campaign engaged in doubting any man's motives. I merely want to point
out that these gentlemen are not proposing the methods of liberty but are proposing the methods of control. A control among
a free people is intolerable.

I have been very much interested the last day or two in having described to me the industries of some of these smaller Western
cities. I known in Indiana, for example, town after town was pointed out to me that still has the American characteristic,
in which there are factories upon factories owned by men who live in the place -- independent enterprises still unabsorbed
by the great economic combinations which have become so threateningly inhuman in our economic organization -- and it seems
to me that these are outposts and symbols of the older and freer America. And after I had traveled through that series of
towns and met the sturdy people that live in them, I entered in the city of Gary, which is a little way outside of Chicago,
and realized that I had come from the older America into the newer America. But this was a town owned and built by a single
monopolistic corporation. And I wondered which kind of America the people of America, if they could see this picture as I
saw it, would choose?

Which do you want? Do you want to live in a town patronized by some great combination of capitalists who pick it out as a
suitable place to plant their industry and draw you into their employment? Or do you want to see your sons and your brothers
and your husbands build up business for themselves under the protection of laws which make it impossible for any giant, however
big, to crush them and put them out of business, so that they can match their wits here in the midst of a free country with
any captain of industry or merchant of finance to be found anywhere in the world, and put every man who now assumes to control
and promote monopoly upon his mettle to beat them at initiative, at economy, at the organization of business, and the cheap
production of salable goods? Which do you want?

Why, gentlemen, America is never going to submit to monopoly. America is never going to choose thralldom instead of freedom.
Look what there is to decide! There is the tariff question. Can the tariff question be decided in favor of the people of the
United States so long as the monopolies are the chief counselors at Washington? There is the great currency question. You
know how difficult it is to move your crops every year. And I tremble, I must frankly tell you, to think of the bumper crops
that are now coming from our fields, because they are going to need enormous bodies of cash to move them.

You have got to get that cash by calling in your loans and embarrassing people in every center of commercial activity, because
there isn't cash enough under our inelastic currency to lend itself to this instrumentality. And are we going to settle the
currency question so long as the government of the United States listens only to the counsel of those who command the banking
situation in the United States? You can't solve the tariff, you can't solve the currency question under the domination which
is proposed by one branch of the Republican Party and tolerated by the other.

Then there is the great question of conservation. What is our fear about conservation? The hands that will be stretched out
to monopolize our forests, to preempt the use of our great power-producing streams, the hands that will be stretched into
the bowels of the earth to take possession of the great riches that lie hidden in Alaska and elsewhere in the incomparable
domain of the United States are the hands of monopoly. And is this thing merely to be regulated? Is this thing to be legalized?
Are these men to continue to stand at the elbow of government and tell us how we are to save ourselves from the very things
that we fear? You can't settle the question of conservation while monopoly exists if monopoly is close to the ears of those
who govern. And the question of conservation is a great deal bigger than the question of saving our forests and our mineral
resources and our waters. It is as big as the life and happiness and strength and elasticity and hope of our people.

The government of the United States has now to look out upon her people and see what they need, what should be done for them.
Why, gentlemen, there are tasks waiting the government of the United States which it cannot perform until every pulse of that
government beats in unison with the needs and the desires of the whole body of the American people. Shall we not give the
people access of sympathy, access of counsel, access of authority to the instrumentalities which are to be indispensable to
their lives?

When I think of the great things to be accomplished and then think of the danger that there is that the people of the United
States will not choose free instruments to accomplish them, then I tremble to think of the verdict that may be rendered on
the 5th of November. But when you look around when going through America, as I have recently been going through it, your heart
rises again. Why, two years ago when I was running for governor in New Jersey, I used to come away from public meetings with
a certain burden on my heart, because I knew I was not mistaken in feeling that I had seen in the faces and felt in the atmosphere
of the great meetings that I addressed a certain sense of foreboding and anxiety as a people who were anxious about their
future.

But I haven't seen anything of that kind in the year 1912. The people of the United States now know what they intend to do.
They intend to take charge of their own affairs again and they see the way to do it. Great outpourings like this are not in
compliment to an individual; they are in demonstration of a purpose. And all I have to say for the Democratic candidate for
the presidency is that I pray God he may be shown the way not to disappoint the expectations of such people.

Only you can show him the way. You can't do it by proxy. You must determine the interests of your own life and then find spokesmen
for those interests who will speak them as fairly as men have learned how to speak in Nebraska. The great emancipation which
has been wrought for you by the fight for progressive democracy which has gone on from splendid stage to splendid stage in
this state is that it has raised up for you men who fearlessly speak the truth. And that is not true of all parts of the country.

Why, there are parts of the country where I am considered brave if I speak in words what every man and woman in the audience
knows to be true. Now, I have never known what it was to exercise courage when I knew that the stars in all their courses
were fighting my way. Do you suppose a man needs be courageous to speak the truth, to attach his puny force to the great voice
of the country which is truth itself? A man would be a coward that wouldn't speak the truth. A man would be a fool who didn't
see that the only puissance in human affairs was the irresistible force of truth itself, and men are weak in proportion as
they are mistaken; they are weak in proportion as their judgments are misled; they are weak in proportion as they do not see
the practical terms into which the truth can be translated. But they are not courageous when they merely tell the truth, because,
if they lie because they were afraid, do you suppose they would have very comfortable moments when they withdraw into the
privacy of their own family?

I wonder how some men sleep of nights because they deceive themselves and deceive others all day long, and then actually go
home and go to sleep. I don't know what their dreams can be. And they speak the things that they know are not true because
they are afraid of something.

Fear is abroad in free America. There are men who dare not undertake certain business enterprises because they know that they
would be crushed. There are men who dare not speak certain opinions because they know that they would be boycotted in influential
circles upon which their credit and their advancement in their business depends.

Do you suppose that it is singular that men should rise up and fight through half a generation as your own champions have
fought in order to dispel that fear? The only way to dispel fear is to bring the things that you are afraid of out in the
open and challenge them there to meet the great moral force of the people of the United States. So that if these gentlemen
will come out and avow their purposes, they will destroy all possibility of realizing those purposes.

One of the fine things of our time is that the whole game is disclosed. We now know the processes of monopoly, and we therefore
know the processes of law by which monopoly can be destroyed. They have shown their hands and we know how to stay their use
of illegitimate power.

Will we do them any damage? I tell you frankly that if I thought that any considerable portion of the enterprising men of
America would be injured by the policies that I am interested in, I would hesitate. But I am clear in the conviction that
to set the people of the United States free is to set the big enterprises free along with the little ones, because I have
never heard of any business conditions which were dependent upon the subservience of great business, of enterprising businessmen.
If you have to be subservient, you aren't even making the rich fellows as rich as they might be, because you are not adding
your originative force to the extraordinary production of wealth in America.

America is as rich, not as Wall Street, not as the financial centers in Chicago and St. Louis and San Francisco; it is as
rich as the people that make its centers rich. And if those people hesitate in their enterprise, cowering in the face of power,
hesitate to originate designs of their own, then the very fountains which make these places abound in wealth are dried up
at the source; so that by setting the little men of America free you are not damaging the giants. You are merely making them
behave like human beings.

Now, a giant ought to have more human nature in him than a Pygmy, and we want to reread the Decalogue to these big men who
may not have heard it in some time. And by moralizing, we are going to set them free and their business free.

It may be that certain things will happen, for monopoly in this country is carrying a body of water such as no body of men
ought to be asked to carry. And when by regulated competition -- that is to say, fair competition, competition that fights
fair -- they are put upon their mettle, they will have to economize in their processes of business, and they can't economize
unless they drop that water. I do not know how to squeeze the water out but they will get rid of it, if you will put them
on their mettle. They will have to get rid of it, or those of us who don't carry tanks will outrun them in the race. Put all
the business of America upon the footing of economy and efficiency, and then let the race be to the strongest and the efficient.

So that our program is a program of prosperity, only it is a program of prosperity that is a little more pervasive to the
present program, and pervasive prosperity is more fruitful than that which is narrow and restrictive.

I congratulate the monopolists of the United States that they are not going to have their way, because, quite contrary to
the old theory, the people of the United States are wiser than they are. The people of the United States understand the United
States as these gentlemen do not, and if they will only give us leave, we will not only make them rich but we will make them
happy, because then our consciences will have less to carry. They are waking up to this fact, ladies and gentlemen. The businessmen
of this country are not deluded, and not all of the big business of this country are deluded.

Some men who have been led into wrong practice, who have been led into the practice of monopoly because that seemed to be
the drift and inevitable method of supremacy of their times, are just as ready as we are to turn about and adopt the processes
of freedom, because American hearts beat in a lot of those men just as they beat under our jackets. They will be as glad to
be free as we have been to set them free. And then the splendid force which has led to the things that hurt us will lead to
the things than benefit us.

We are coming to a common understanding, and only a common understanding is the tolerable basis of a free government. I congratulate
you, therefore, ladies and gentlemen, that you are now coming to that point of fruition of which you have dreamed and for
which you have planned in Nebraska for more than half a generation. . . .

What we propose, therefore, in this program of freedom, is a program of general advantage. Almost every monopoly that has
resisted extinction has resisted the real interests of its own stockholders. And it has been very, very slow business convincing
those who were responsible for the business of the country that that was the fact. After the 4th of March next, therefore,
we are going to get together; we are going to stop serving special interests, and we are going to stop setting one interest
up against another interest. We are not going to champion one set of people against another set of people, but we are going
to see what common counsel can accomplish for the happiness and redemption of America.

As an army officer and as an Indian agent for the War Department, Andrew Jackson had helped to implement the policy of removing the Native Americans living east
of the Mississippi River from their tribal lands. As president, he was determined to see the process completed. In his first
annual message to Congress, Jackson put forth a proposal to reestablish in territories west of the Mississippi the remaining
Creek, Cherokee, and other peoples of the South. In 1830 Congress granted him the power to remove the Native Americans, and
in 1834 it designated a special territory in the West for their settlement. The following extract from Jackson's seventh annual
message to Congress on December 7, 1835, reflects his belief that this segregation of Native Americans, secured from further
white settlement, would be the final solution to the “Indian problem.”

The plan of removing the aboriginal people who yet remain within the settled portions of the United States to the country
west of the Mississippi River approaches its consummation. It was adopted on the most mature consideration of the condition
of this race, and ought to be persisted in till the object is accomplished, and prosecuted with as much vigor as a just regard
to their circumstances will permit, and as fast as their consent can be obtained. All preceding experiments for the improvement
of the Indians have failed. It seems now to be an established fact that they can not live in contact with a civilized community
and prosper. Ages of fruitless endeavors have at length brought us to a knowledge of this principle of intercommunication
with them. The past we can not recall, but the future we can provide for.

Independently of the treaty stipulations into which we have entered with the various tribes for the usufructuary rights they
have ceded to us, no one can doubt the moral duty of the government of the United States to protect and if possible to preserve
and perpetuate the scattered remnants of this race which are left within our borders. In the discharge of this duty an extensive
region in the West has been assigned for their permanent residence. It has been divided into districts and allotted among
them. Many have already removed and others are preparing to go, and with the exception of two small bands living in Ohio and
Indiana not exceeding 1,500 persons, and of the Cherokees, all the tribes on the east side of the Mississippi, and extending
from Lake Michigan to Florida, have entered into engagements which will lead to their transplantation.

The plan for their removal and reestablishment is founded upon the knowledge we have gained of their character and habits,
and has been dictated by a spirit of enlarged liberality. A territory exceeding in extent that relinquished has been granted
to each tribe. Of its climate, fertility, and capacity to support an Indian population the representatives are highly favorable.
To these districts the Indians are removed at the expense of the United States, and with certain supplies of clothing, arms,
ammunition, and other indispensable articles; they are also furnished gratuitously with provisions for the period of a year
after their arrival at their new homes. In that time, from the nature of the country and of the products raised by them, they
can subsist themselves by agricultural labor, if they choose to resort to that mode of life; if they do not they are upon
the skirts of the great prairies, where countless herds of buffalo roam, and a short time suffices to adapt their own habits
to the changes which a change of the animals destined for their food may require.

Ample arrangements have also been made for the support of schools; in some instances council houses and churches are to be
erected, dwellings constructed for the chiefs, and mills for common use. Funds have been set apart for the maintenance of
the poor; the most necessary mechanical arts have been introduced, and blacksmiths, gunsmiths, wheelwrights, millwrights,
etc., are supported among them. Steel and iron, and sometimes salt, are purchased for them, and plows and other farming utensils,
domestic animals, looms, spinning wheels, cards, etc., are presented to them. And besides these beneficial arrangements, annuities
are in all cases paid, amounting in some instances to more than thirty dollars for each individual of the tribe, and in all
cases sufficiently great, if justly divided and prudently expended, to enable them, in addition to their own exertions, to
live comfortably. And as a stimulus for exertion, it is now provided by law that "in all cases of the appointment of interpreters
or other persons employed for the benefit of the Indians a preference shall be given to persons of Indian descent, if such
can be found who are properly qualified for the discharge of the duties."

Such are the arrangements for the physical comfort and for the moral improvement of the Indians. The necessary measures for
their political advancement and for their separation from our citizens have not been neglected. The pledge of the United States
has been given by Congress that the country destined for the residence of this people shall be forever "secured and guaranteed
to them." A country west of Missouri and Arkansas has been assigned to them, into which the white settlements are not to be
pushed. No political communities can be formed in that extensive region, except those which are established by the Indians
themselves or by the United States for them and with their concurrence. A barrier has thus been raised for their protection
against the encroachment of our citizens, and guarding the Indians as far as possible from those evils which have brought
them to their present condition.

Summary authority has been given by law to destroy all ardent spirits found in their country, without waiting the doubtful
result and slow process of a legal seizure. I consider the absolute and unconditional interdiction of this article among these
people as the first and great step in their melioration. Halfway measures will answer no purpose. These can not successfully
contend against the cupidity of the seller and the overpowering appetite of the buyer. And the destructive effects of the
traffic are marked in every page of the history of our Indian intercourse.

Some general legislation seems necessary for the regulation of the relations which will exist in this new state of things
between the government and people of the United States and these transplanted Indian tribes, and for the establishment among
the latter, and with their own consent, of some principles of intercommunication which their juxtaposition will call for;
that moral may be substituted for physical force, the authority of a few and simple laws for the tomahawk, and that an end
may be put to those bloody wars whose prosecution seems to have made part of their social system.

After the further details of this arrangement are completed, with a very general supervision over them, they ought to be left
to the progress of events. These, I indulge the hope, will secure their prosperity and improvement, and a large portion of
the moral debt we owe them will then be paid.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 3, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 147-177.

We stand to-day upon an eminence which overlooks a hundred years of national life--a century crowded with perils, but crowned
with the triumphs of liberty and law. Before continuing the onward march let us pause on this height for a moment to strengthen
our faith and renew our hope by a glance at the pathway along which our people have traveled.

It is now three days more than a hundred years since the adoption of the first written constitution of the United States--the
Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The new Republic was then beset with danger on every hand. It had not conquered
a place in the family of nations. The decisive battle of the war for independence, whose centennial anniversary will soon
be gratefully celebrated at Yorktown, had not yet been fought. The colonists were struggling not only against the armies of
a great nation, but against the settled opinions of mankind; for the world did not then believe that the supreme authority
of government could be safely intrusted to the guardianship of the people themselves.

We can not overestimate the fervent love of liberty, the intelligent courage, and the sum of common sense with which our fathers
made the great experiment of self-government. When they found, after a short trial, that the confederacy of States, was too
weak to meet the necessities of a vigorous and expanding republic, they boldly set it aside, and in its stead established
a National Union, founded directly upon the will of the people, endowed with full power of self-preservation and ample authority
for the accomplishment of its great object.

Under this Constitution the boundaries of freedom have been enlarged, the foundations of order and peace have been strengthened,
and the growth of our people in all the better elements of national life has indicated the wisdom of the founders and given
new hope to their descendants. Under this Constitution our people long ago made themselves safe against danger from without
and secured for their mariners and flag equality of rights on all the seas. Under this Constitution twenty-five States have
been added to the Union, with constitutions and laws, framed and enforced by their own citizens, to secure the manifold blessings
of local self-government.

The jurisdiction of this Constitution now covers an area fifty times greater than that of the original thirteen States and
a population twenty times greater than that of 1780.

The supreme trial of the Constitution came at last under the tremendous pressure of civil war. We ourselves are witnesses
that the Union emerged from the blood and fire of that conflict purified and made stronger for all the beneficent purposes
of good government.

And now, at the close of this first century of growth, with the inspirations of its history in their hearts, our people have
lately reviewed the condition of the nation, passed judgment upon the conduct and opinions of political parties, and have
registered their will concerning the future administration of the Government. To interpret and to execute that will in accordance
with the Constitution is the paramount duty of the Executive.

Even from this brief review it is manifest that the nation is resolutely facing to the front, resolved to employ its best
energies in developing the great possibilities of the future. Sacredly preserving whatever has been gained to liberty and
good government during the century, our people are determined to leave behind them all those bitter controversies concerning
things which have been irrevocably settled, and the further discussion of which can only stir up strife and delay the onward
march.

The supremacy of the nation and its laws should be no longer a subject of debate. That discussion, which for half a century
threatened the existence of the Union, was closed at last in the high court of war by a decree from which there is no appeal--that
the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are and shall continue to be the supreme law of the land, binding
alike upon the States and the people. This decree does not disturb the autonomy of the States nor interfere with any of their
necessary rights of local self-government, but it does fix and establish the permanent supremacy of the Union.

The will of the nation, speaking with the voice of battle and through the amended Constitution, has fulfilled the great promise
of 1776 by proclaiming "liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof."

The elevation of the negro race from slavery to the full rights of citizenship is the most important political change we have known since the adoption of
the Constitution of 1787. No thoughtful man can fail to appreciate its beneficent effect upon our institutions and people.
It has freed us from the perpetual danger of war and dissolution. It has added immensely to the moral and industrial forces
of our people. It has liberated the master as well as the slave from a relation which wronged and enfeebled both. It has surrendered
to their own guardianship the manhood of more than 5,000,000 people, and has opened to each one of them a career of freedom
and usefulness. It has given new inspiration to the power of self-help in both races by making labor more honorable to the
one and more necessary to the other. The influence of this force will grow greater and bear richer fruit with the coming years.

No doubt this great change has caused serious disturbance to our Southern communities. This is to be deplored, though it was
perhaps unavoidable. But those who resisted the change should remember that under our institutions there was no middle ground
for the negro race between slavery and equal citizenship. There can be no permanent disfranchised peasantry in the United
States. Freedom can never yield its fullness of blessings so long as the law or its administration places the smallest obstacle
in the pathway of any virtuous citizen.

The emancipated race has already made remarkable progress. With unquestioning devotion to the Union, with a patience and gentleness
not born of fear, they have "followed the light as God gave them to see the light." They are rapidly laying the material foundations
of self-support, widening their circle of intelligence, and beginning to enjoy the blessings that gather around the homes
of the industrious poor. They deserve the generous encouragement of all good men. So far as my authority can lawfully extend
they shall enjoy the full and equal protection of the Constitution and the laws.

The free enjoyment of equal suffrage is still in question, and a frank statement of the issue may aid its solution. It is
alleged that in many communities negro citizens are practically denied the freedom of the ballot. In so far as the truth of
this allegation is admitted, it is answered that in many places honest local government is impossible if the mass of uneducated
negroes are allowed to vote. These are grave allegations. So far as the latter is true, it is the only palliation that can
be offered for opposing the freedom of the ballot. Bad local government is certainly a great evil, which ought to be prevented;
but to violate the freedom and sanctities of the suffrage is more than an evil. It is a crime which, if persisted in, will
destroy the Government itself. Suicide is not a remedy. If in other lands it be high treason to compass the death of the king,
it shall be counted no less a crime here to strangle our sovereign power and stifle its voice.

It has been said that unsettled questions have no pity for the repose of nations. It should be said with the utmost emphasis
that this question of the suffrage will never give repose or safety to the States or to the nation until each, within its
own jurisdiction, makes and keeps the ballot free and pure by the strong sanctions of the law.

But the danger which arises from ignorance in the voter can not be denied. It covers a field far wider than that of negro
suffrage and the present condition of the race. It is a danger that lurks and hides in the sources and fountains of power
in every state. We have no standard by which to measure the disaster that may be brought upon us by ignorance and vice in
the citizens when joined to corruption and fraud in the suffrage.

The voters of the Union, who make and unmake constitutions, and upon whose will hang the destinies of our governments, can
transmit their supreme authority to no successors save the coming generation of voters, who are the sole heirs of sovereign
power. If that generation comes to its inheritance blinded by ignorance and corrupted by vice, the fall of the Republic will
be certain and remediless.

The census has already sounded the alarm in the appalling figures which mark how dangerously high the tide of illiteracy has
risen among our voters and their children.

To the South this question is of supreme importance. But the responsibility for the existence of slavery did not rest upon
the South alone. The nation itself is responsible for the extension of the suffrage, and is under special obligations to aid
in removing the illiteracy which it has added to the voting population. For the North and South alike there is but one remedy.
All the constitutional power of the nation and of the States and all the volunteer forces of the people should be surrendered
to meet this danger by the savory influence of universal education. It is the high privilege and sacred duty of those now
living to educate their successors and fit them, by intelligence and virtue, for the inheritance which awaits them.

In this beneficent work sections and races should be forgotten and partisanship should be unknown. Let our people find a new
meaning in the divine oracle which declares that "a little child shall lead them," for our own little children will soon control
the destinies of the Republic.

My countrymen, we do not now differ in our judgment concerning the controversies of past generations, and fifty years hence
our children will not be divided in their opinions concerning our controversies. They will surely bless their fathers and
their fathers' God that the Union was preserved, that slavery was overthrown, and that both races were made equal before the
law. We may hasten or we may retard, but we can not prevent, the final reconciliation. Is it not possible for us now to make
a truce with time by anticipating and accepting its inevitable verdict?

Enterprises of the highest importance to our moral and material well-being unite us and offer ample employment of our best
powers. Let all our people, leaving behind them the battlefields of dead issues, move forward and in their strength of liberty
and the restored Union win the grander victories of peace.

The prosperity which now prevails is without parallel in our history. Fruitful seasons have done much to secure it, but they
have not done all. The preservation of the public credit and the resumption of specie payments, so successfully attained by
the Administration of my predecessors, have enabled our people to secure the blessings which the seasons brought.

By the experience of commercial nations in all ages it has been found that gold and silver afford the only safe foundation for a monetary system. Confusion has recently been created by variations in the relative value of the two metals, but I confidently believe that
arrangements can be made between the leading commercial nations which will secure the general use of both metals. Congress
should provide that the compulsory coinage of silver now required by law may not disturb our monetary system by driving either
metal out of circulation. If possible, such an adjustment should be made that the purchasing power of every coined dollar
will be exactly equal to its debt-paying power in all the markets of the world.

The chief duty of the National Government in connection with the currency of the country is to coin money and declare its
value. Grave doubts have been entertained whether Congress is authorized by the Constitution to make any form of paper money
legal tender. The present issue of United States notes has been sustained by the necessities of war; but such paper should
depend for its value and currency upon its convenience in use and its prompt redemption in coin at the will of the holder,
and not upon its compulsory circulation. These notes are not money, but promises to pay money. If the holders demand it, the
promise should be kept.

The refunding of the national debt at a lower rate of interest should be accomplished without compelling the withdrawal of
the national-bank notes, and thus disturbing the business of the country.

I venture to refer to the position I have occupied on financial questions during a long service in Congress, and to say that
time and experience have strengthened the opinions I have so often expressed on these subjects.

The finances of the Government shall suffer no detriment which it may be possible for my Administration to prevent. The interests
of agriculture deserve more attention from the Government than they have yet received. The farms of the United States afford
homes and employment for more than one-half our people, and furnish much the largest part of all our exports. As the Government
lights our coasts for the protection of mariners and the benefit of commerce, so it should give to the tillers of the soil
the best lights of practical science and experience.

Our manufacturers are rapidly making us industrially independent, and are opening to capital and labor new and profitable
fields of employment. Their steady and healthy growth should still be matured. Our facilities for transportation should be
promoted by the continued improvement of our harbors and great interior waterways and by the increase of our tonnage on the
ocean.

The development of the world's commerce has led to an urgent demand for shortening the great sea voyage around Cape Horn by
constructing ship canals or railways across the isthmus which unites the continents. Various plans to this end have been suggested and will need consideration,
but none of them has been sufficiently matured to warrant the United States in extending pecuniary aid. The subject, however,
is one which will immediately engage the attention of the Government with a view to a thorough protection to American interests.
We will urge no narrow policy nor seek peculiar or exclusive privileges in any commercial route; but, in the language of my
predecessor, I believe it to be the right "and duty of the United States to assert and maintain such supervision and authority
over any interoceanic canal across the isthmus that connects North and South America as will protect our national interest."

The Constitution guarantees absolute religious freedom. Congress is prohibited from making any law respecting an establishment
of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Territories of the United States are subject to the direct legislative
authority of Congress, and hence the General Government is responsible for any violation of the Constitution in any of them.
It is therefore a reproach to the Government that in the most populous of the Territories the constitutional guaranty is not
enjoyed by the people and the authority of Congress is set at naught. The Mormon Church not only offends the moral sense of manhood by sanctioning polygamy, but prevents the administration of justice through ordinary
instrumentalities of law.

In my judgment it is the duty of Congress, while respecting to the uttermost the conscientious convictions and religious scruples
of every citizen, to prohibit within its jurisdiction all criminal practices, especially of that class which destroy the family
relations and endanger social order. Nor can any ecclesiastical organization be safely permitted to usurp in the smallest
degree the functions and powers of the National Government.

The civil service can never be placed on a satisfactory basis until it is regulated by law. For the good of the service itself,
for the protection of those who are intrusted with the appointing power against the waste of time and obstruction to the public
business caused by the inordinate pressure for place, and for the protection of incumbents against intrigue and wrong, I shall
at the proper time ask Congress to fix the tenure of the minor offices of the several Executive Departments and prescribe
the grounds upon which removals shall be made during the terms for which incumbents have been appointed.

Finally, acting always within the authority and limitations of the Constitution, invading neither the rights of the States
nor the reserved rights of the people, it will be the purpose of my Administration to maintain the authority of the nation
in all places within its jurisdiction; to enforce obedience to all the laws of the Union in the interests of the people; to
demand rigid economy in all the expenditures of the Government, and to require the honest and faithful service of all executive
officers, remembering that the offices were created, not for the benefit of incumbents or their supporters, but for the service
of the Government.

And now, fellow-citizens, I am about to assume the great trust which you have committed to my hands. I appeal to you for that
earnest and thoughtful support which makes this Government in fact, as it is in law, a government of the people.

I shall greatly rely upon the wisdom and patriotism of Congress and of those who may share with me the responsibilities and
duties of administration, and, above all, upon our efforts to promote the welfare of this great people and their Government
I reverently invoke the support and blessings of Almighty God.

The complexity of the issues involved in the debate about the Missouri Compromise is revealed in the selection that appears below from the diary of John Quincy Adams, dated March 3, 1820, only three days
before the Missouri Enabling Act went into effect. President Monroe had assembled his cabinet (Adams was secretary of state)
for advice before signing the bills admitting Maine and Missouri, and Adams recommended their acceptance. He did so despite
the fact that he believed that slavery was a profound moral evil. At the same time, however, he was convinced that the Constitution
did not give the federal government the power to abolish the institution. "The abolition of slavery where it is established
must be left entirely to the people of the state itself," he declared in a letter of the same date to Governor Jonathan Jennings
of Indiana. "The healthy have no right to reproach or to prescribe for the diseased."

When I came this day to my office, I found there a note requesting me to call at one o'clock at the President's house. It
was then one, and I immediately went over. He expected that the two bills--for the admission of Maine, and to enable Missouri
to make a constitution--would have been brought to him for his signature, and he had summoned all the members of the administration
to ask their opinions, in writing, to be deposited in the Department of State, upon two questions: (1) whether Congress had
a constitutional right to prohibit slavery in a territory; and (2) whether the 8th Section of the Missouri bill (which interdicts
slavery forever in the territory north of thirty-six and a half latitude) was applicable only to the territorial state, or could extend to
it after it should become a state. . . .

After this meeting, I walked home with Calhoun, who said that . . . in the Southern country . . . domestic labor was confined to the blacks; and such was the prejudice
that if he, who was the most popular man in his district, were to keep a white servant in his house, his character and reputation
would be irretrievably ruined.

I said that this confounding of the ideas of servitude and labor was one of the bad effects of slavery; but he thought it
attended with many excellent consequences. It did not apply to all kinds of labor--not, for example, to farming. He himself
had often held the plough; so had his father. Manufacturing and mechanical labor was not degrading. It was only manual labor--the
proper work of slaves. No white person could descend to that. And it was the best guarantee to equality among the whites.
It produced an unvarying level among them. It not only did not excite but did not even admit of inequalities, by which one
white man could domineer over another.

I told Calhoun I could not see things in the same light. It is, in truth, all perverted sentiment--mistaking labor for slavery,
and dominion for freedom. The discussion of this Missouri question has betrayed the secret of their souls. In the abstract
they admit that slavery is an evil, they disclaim all participation in the introduction of it, and cast it all upon the shoulders
of our old Grandam Britain. But when probed to the quick upon it, they show at the bottom of their souls pride and vainglory
in their condition of masterdom. They fancy themselves more generous and noblehearted than the plain freemen who labor for
subsistence. They look down upon the simplicity of a Yankee's manners, because he has no habits of overbearing like theirs
and cannot treat Negroes like dogs.

It is among the evils of slavery that it taints the very sources of moral principle. It establishes false estimates of virtue
and vice; for what can be more false and heartless than this doctrine which makes the first and holiest rights of humanity
to depend upon the color of the skin? It perverts human reason, and reduces man endowed with logical powers to maintain that
slavery is sanctioned by the Christian religion, that slaves are happy and contented in their condition, that between master
and slave there are ties of mutual attachment and affection, that the virtues of the master are refined and exalted by the
degradation of the slave; while at the same time they vent execrations upon the slave trade, curse Britain for having given
them slaves, burn at the stake Negroes convicted of crimes for the terror of the example, and writhe in agonies of fear at
the very mention of human rights as applicable to men of color. The impression produced upon my mind by the progress of this
discussion is that the bargain between freedom and slavery contained in the Constitution of the United States is morally and
politically vicious, inconsistent with the principles upon which alone our Revolution can be justified; cruel and oppressive,
by riveting the chains of slavery, by pledging the faith of freedom to maintain and perpetuate the tyranny of the master;
and grossly unequal and impolitic, by admitting that slaves are at once enemies to be kept in subjection, property to be secured
or restored to their owners, and persons not to be represented themselves, but for whom their masters are privileged with
nearly a double share of representation. The consequence has been that this slave representation has governed the Union.

Benjamin portioned above his brethren has ravined as a wolf. In the morning he has devoured the prey, and at night he has
divided the spoil. It would be no difficult matter to prove, by reviewing the history of the Union under this Constitution,
that almost everything which has contributed to the honor and welfare of the nation has been accomplished in spite of them
or forced upon them, and that everything unpropitious and dishonorable, including the blunders and follies of their adversaries,
may be traced to them.

I have favored this Missouri Compromise, believing it to be all that could be effected under the present Constitution, and
from extreme unwillingness to put the Union at hazard. But perhaps it would have been a wiser as well as a bolder course to
have persisted in the restriction upon Missouri, till it should have terminated in a convention of the states to revise and
amend the Constitution. This would have produced a new Union of thirteen or fourteen States, unpolluted with slavery, with
a great and glorious object to effect; namely, that of rallying to their standard the other states by the universal emancipation
of their slaves. If the Union must be dissolved, slavery is precisely the question upon which it ought to break. For the present,
however, this contest is laid asleep.

It is a relief to feel that no heart but my own can know the personal regret and bitter sorrow over which I have been borne
to a position so suitable for others rather than desirable for myself.

The circumstances under which I have been called for a limited period to preside over the destinies of the Republic fill me
with a profound sense of responsibility, but with nothing like shrinking apprehension. I repair to the post assigned me not
as to one sought, but in obedience to the unsolicited expression of your will, answerable only for a fearless, faithful, and
diligent exercise of my best powers. I ought to be, and am, truly grateful for the rare manifestation of the nation's confidence;
but this, so far from lightening my obligations, only adds to their weight. You have summoned me in my weakness; you must
sustain me by your strength. When looking for the fulfillment of reasonable requirements, you will not be unmindful of the
great changes which have occurred, even within the last quarter of a century, and the consequent augmentation and complexity
of duties imposed in the administration both of your home and foreign affairs.

Whether the elements of inherent force in the Republic have kept pace with its unparalleled progression in territory, population,
and wealth has been the subject of earnest thought and discussion on both sides of the ocean. Less than sixty-four years ago
the Father of his Country made "the" then "recent accession of the important State of North Carolina to the Constitution of
the United States" one of the subjects of his special congratulation. At that moment, however, when the agitation consequent
upon the Revolutionary struggle had hardly subsided, when we were just emerging from the weakness and embarrassments of the
Confederation, there was an evident consciousness of vigor equal to the great mission so wisely and bravely fulfilled by our
fathers. It was not a presumptuous assurance, but a calm faith, springing from a clear view of the sources of power in a government
constituted like ours. It is no paradox to say that although comparatively weak the new-born nation was intrinsically strong.
Inconsiderable in population and apparent resources, it was upheld by a broad and intelligent comprehension of rights and
an all-pervading purpose to maintain them, stronger than armaments. It came from the furnace of the Revolution, tempered to
the necessities of the times. The thoughts of the men of that day were as practical as their sentiments were patriotic. They
wasted no portion of their energies upon idle and delusive speculations, but with a firm and fearless step advanced beyond
the governmental landmarks which had hitherto circumscribed the limits of human freedom and planted their standard, where
it has stood against dangers which have threatened from abroad, and internal agitation, which has at times fearfully menaced
at home. They proved themselves equal to the solution of the great problem, to understand which their minds had been illuminated
by the dawning lights of the Revolution. The object sought was not a thing dreamed of; it was a thing realized. They had exhibited
only the power to achieve, but, what all history affirms to be so much more unusual, the capacity to maintain. The oppressed
throughout the world from that day to the present have turned their eyes hitherward, not to find those lights extinguished
or to fear lest they should wane, but to be constantly cheered by their steady and increasing radiance.

In this our country has, in my judgment, thus far fulfilled its highest duty to suffering humanity. It has spoken and will
continue to speak, not only by its words, but by its acts, the language of sympathy, encouragement, and hope to those who
earnestly listen to tones which pronounce for the largest rational liberty. But after all, the most animating encouragement
and potent appeal for freedom will be its own history-its trials and its triumphs. Preeminently, the power of our advocacy
reposes in our example; but no example, be it remembered, can be powerful for lasting good, whatever apparent advantages may
be gained, which is not based upon eternal principles of right and justice. Our fathers decided for themselves, both upon
the hour to declare and the hour to strike. They were their own judges of the circumstances under which it became them to
pledge to each other "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" for the acquisition of the priceless inheritance
transmitted to us. The energy with which that great conflict was opened and, under the guidance of a manifest and beneficent
Providence the uncomplaining endurance with which it was prosecuted to its consummation were only surpassed by the wisdom
and patriotic spirit of concession which characterized all the counsels of the early fathers.

One of the most impressive evidences of that wisdom is to be found in the fact that the actual working of our system has dispelled
a degree of solicitude which at the outset disturbed bold hearts and far-reaching intellects. The apprehension of dangers
from extended territory, multiplied States, accumulated wealth, and augmented population has proved to be unfounded. The stars
upon your banner have become nearly threefold their original number; your densely populated possessions skirt the shores of
the two great oceans; and yet this vast increase of people and territory has not only shown itself compatible with the harmonious
action of the States and Federal Government in their respective constitutional spheres, but has afforded an additional guaranty
of the strength and integrity of both.

With an experience thus suggestive and cheering, the policy of my Administration will not be controlled by any timid forebodings
of evil from expansion. Indeed, it is not to be disguised that our attitude as a nation and our position on the globe render
the acquisition of certain possessions not within our jurisdiction eminently important for our protection, if not in the future
essential for the preservation of the rights of commerce and the peace of the world. Should they be obtained, it will be through
no grasping spirit, but with a view to obvious national interest and security, and in a manner entirely consistent with the
strictest observance of national faith. We have nothing in our history or position to invite aggression; we have everything
to beckon us to the cultivation of relations of peace and amity with all nations. Purposes, therefore, at once just and pacific
will be significantly marked in the conduct of our foreign affairs. I intend that my Administration shall leave no blot upon
our fair record, and trust I may safely give the assurance that no act within the legitimate scope of my constitutional control
will be tolerated on the part of any portion of our citizens which can not challenge a ready justification before the tribunal
of the civilized world. An Administration would be unworthy of confidence at home or respect abroad should it cease to be
influenced by the conviction that no apparent advantage can be purchased at a price so dear as that of national wrong or dishonor.
It is not your privilege as a nation to speak of a distant past. The striking incidents of your history, replete with instruction
and furnishing abundant grounds for hopeful confidence, are comprised in a period comparatively brief. But if your past is
limited, your future is boundless. Its obligations throng the unexplored pathway of advancement, and will be limitless as
duration. Hence a sound and comprehensive policy should embrace not less the distant future than the urgent present.

The great objects of our pursuit as a people are best to be attained by peace, and are entirely consistent with the tranquillity
and interests of the rest of mankind. With the neighboring nations upon our continent we should cultivate kindly and fraternal
relations. We can desire nothing in regard to them so much as to see them consolidate their strength and pursue the paths
of prosperity and happiness. If in the course of their growth we should open new channels of trade and create additional facilities
for friendly intercourse, the benefits realized will be equal and mutual. Of the complicated European systems of national
polity we have heretofore been independent. From their wars, their tumults, and anxieties we have been, happily, almost entirely
exempt. Whilst these are confined to the nations which gave them existence, and within their legitimate jurisdiction, they
can not affect us except as they appeal to our sympathies in the cause of human freedom and universal advancement. But the
vast interests of commerce are common to all mankind, and the advantages of trade and international intercourse must always
present a noble field for the moral influence of a great people.

With these views firmly and honestly carried out, we have a right to expect, and shall under all circumstances require, prompt
reciprocity. The rights which belong to us as a nation are not alone to be regarded, but those which pertain to every citizen
in his individual capacity, at home and abroad, must be sacredly maintained. So long as he can discern every star in its place
upon that ensign, without wealth to purchase for him preferment or title to secure for him place, it will be his privilege,
and must be his acknowledged right, to stand unabashed even in the presence of princes, with a proud consciousness that he
is himself one of a nation of sovereigns and that he can not in legitimate pursuit wander so far from home that the agent
whom he shall leave behind in the place which I now occupy will not see that no rude hand of power or tyrannical passion is
laid upon him with impunity. He must realize that upon every sea and on every soil where our enterprise may rightfully seek
the protection of our flag American citizenship is an inviolable panoply for the security of American rights. And in this
connection it can hardly be necessary to reaffirm a principle which should now be regarded as fundamental. The rights, security,
and repose of this Confederacy reject the idea of interference or colonization on this side of the ocean by any foreign power
beyond present jurisdiction as utterly inadmissible.

The opportunities of observation furnished by my brief experience as a soldier confirmed in my own mind the opinion, entertained
and acted upon by others from the formation of the Government, that the maintenance of large standing armies in our country
would be not only dangerous, but unnecessary. They also illustrated the importance-I might well say the absolute necessity-of
the military science and practical skill furnished in such an eminent degree by the institution which has made your Army what
it is, under the discipline and instruction of officers not more distinguished for their solid attainments, gallantry, and
devotion to the public service than for unobtrusive bearing and high moral tone. The Army as organized must be the nucleus
around which in every time of need the strength of your military power, the sure bulwark of your defense-a national militia-may
be readily formed into a well-disciplined and efficient organization. And the skill and self-devotion of the Navy assure you
that you may take the performance of the past as a pledge for the future, and may confidently expect that the flag which has
waved its untarnished folds over every sea will still float in undiminished honor. But these, like many other subjects, will
be appropriately brought at a future time to the attention of the coordinate branches of the Government, to which I shall
always look with profound respect and with trustful confidence that they will accord to me the aid and support which I shall
so much need and which their experience and wisdom will readily suggest.

In the administration of domestic affairs you expect a devoted integrity in the public service and an observance of rigid
economy in all departments, so marked as never justly to be questioned. If this reasonable expectation be not realized, I
frankly confess that one of your leading hopes is doomed to disappointment, and that my efforts in a very important particular
must result in a humiliating failure. Offices can be properly regarded only in the light of aids for the accomplishment of
these objects, and as occupancy can confer no prerogative nor importunate desire for preferment any claim, the public interest
imperatively demands that they be considered with sole reference to the duties to be performed. Good citizens may well claim
the protection of good laws and the benign influence of good government, but a claim for office is what the people of a republic
should never recognize. No reasonable man of any party will expect the Administration to be so regardless of its responsibility
and of the obvious elements of success as to retain persons known to be under the influence of political hostility and partisan
prejudice in positions which will require not only severe labor, but cordial cooperation. Having no implied engagements to
ratify, no rewards to bestow, no resentments to remember, and no personal wishes to consult in selections for official station,
I shall fulfill this difficult and delicate trust, admitting no motive as worthy either of my character or position which
does not contemplate an efficient discharge of duty and the best interests of my country. I acknowledge my obligations to
the masses of my countrymen, and to them alone. Higher objects than personal aggrandizement gave direction and energy to their
exertions in the late canvass, and they shall not be disappointed. They require at my hands diligence, integrity, and capacity
wherever there are duties to be performed. Without these qualities in their public servants, more stringent laws for the prevention
or punishment of fraud, negligence, and peculation will be vain. With them they will be unnecessary.

But these are not the only points to which you look for vigilant watchfulness. The dangers of a concentration of all power
in the general government of a confederacy so vast as ours are too obvious to be disregarded. You have a right, therefore,
to expect your agents in every department to regard strictly the limits imposed upon them by the Constitution of the United
States. The great scheme of our constitutional liberty rests upon a proper distribution of power between the State and Federal
authorities, and experience has shown that the harmony and happiness of our people must depend upon a just discrimination
between the separate rights and responsibilities of the States and your common rights and obligations under the General Government;
and here, in my opinion, are the considerations which should form the true basis of future concord in regard to the questions
which have most seriously disturbed public tranquillity. If the Federal Government will confine itself to the exercise of
powers clearly granted by the Constitution, it can hardly happen that its action upon any question should endanger the institutions
of the States or interfere with their right to manage matters strictly domestic according to the will of their own people.

In expressing briefly my views upon an important subject [which] has recently agitated the nation to almost a fearful degree,
I am moved by no other impulse than a most earnest desire for the perpetuation of that Union which has made us what we are,
showering upon us blessings and conferring a power and influence which our fathers could hardly have anticipated, even with
their most sanguine hopes directed to a far-off future. The sentiments I now announce were not unknown before the expression
of the voice which called me here. My own position upon this subject was clear and unequivocal, upon the record of my words
and my acts, and it is only recurred to at this time because silence might perhaps be misconstrued. With the Union my best
and dearest earthly hopes are entwined. Without it what are we individually or collectively? What becomes of the noblest field
ever opened for the advancement of our race in religion, in government, in the arts, and in all that dignifies and adorns
mankind? From that radiant constellation which both illumines our own way and points out to struggling nations their course,
let but a single star be lost, and, if these be not utter darkness, the luster of the whole is dimmed. Do my countrymen need
any assurance that such a catastrophe is not to overtake them while I possess the power to stay it? It is with me an earnest
and vital belief that as the Union has been the source, under Providence, of our prosperity to this time, so it is the surest
pledge of a continuance of the blessings we have enjoyed, and which we are sacredly bound to transmit undiminished to our
children. The field of calm and free discussion in our country is open, and will always be so, but never has been and never
can be traversed for good in a spirit of sectionalism and uncharitableness. The founders of the Republic dealt with things
as they were presented to them, in a spirit of self-sacrificing patriotism, and, as time has proved, with a comprehensive
wisdom which it will always be safe for us to consult. Every measure tending to strengthen the fraternal feelings of all the
members of our Union has had my heartfelt approbation. To every theory of society or government, whether the offspring of
feverish ambition or of morbid enthusiasm, calculated to dissolve the bonds of law and affection which unite us, I shall interpose
a ready and stern resistance. I believe that involuntary servitude, as it exists in different States of this Confederacy,
is recognized by the Constitution. I believe that it stands like any other admitted right, and that the States where it exists
are entitled to efficient remedies to enforce the constitutional provisions. I hold that the laws of 1850, commonly called
the "compromise measures," are strictly constitutional and to be unhesitatingly carried into effect. I believe that the constituted
authorities of this Republic are bound to regard the rights of the South in this respect as they would view any other legal
and constitutional right, and that the laws to enforce them should be respected and obeyed, not with a reluctance encouraged
by abstract opinions as to their propriety in a different state of society, but cheerfully and according to the decisions
of the tribunal to which their exposition belongs. Such have been, and are, my convictions, and upon them I shall act. I fervently
hope that the question is at rest, and that no sectional or ambitious or fanatical excitement may again threaten the durability
of our institutions or obscure the light of our prosperity.

But let not the foundation of our hope rest upon man's wisdom. It will not be sufficient that sectional prejudices find no
place in the public deliberations. It will not be sufficient that the rash counsels of human passion are rejected. It must
be felt that there is no national security but in the nation's humble, acknowledged dependence upon God and His overruling
providence.

We have been carried in safety through a perilous crisis. Wise counsels, like those which gave us the Constitution, prevailed
to uphold it. Let the period be remembered as an admonition, and not as an encouragement, in any section of the Union, to
make experiments where experiments are fraught with such fearful hazard. Let it be impressed upon all hearts that, beautiful
as our fabric is, no earthly power or wisdom could ever reunite its broken fragments. Standing, as I do, almost within view
of the green slopes of Monticello, and, as it were, within reach of the tomb of Washington, with all the cherished memories
of the past gathering around me like so many eloquent voices of exhortation from heaven, I can express no better hope for
my country than that the kind Providence which smiled upon our fathers may enable their children to preserve the blessings
they have inherited.

The agreements arrived at during the Versailles Peace Conference of 1919 dealt, among other things, with territorial adjustments,
colonial claims, war reparations, and arms control. President Wilson, who headed the American delegation, was convinced that
no lasting peace was possible unless, in addition to those, an international organization came into existence. On January
25 he accepted the post of chairman of the commission that drew up the Covenant of the League of Nations and that submitted
it to a plenary session of the Conference on February 14. Reprinted here is Wilson's explanatory speech made immediately after
the Covenant was read to the delegates.

It gives me pleasure to add to this formal reading of the result of our labors that the character of the discussion which
occurred at the sittings of the commission was not only of the most constructive but of the most encouraging sort. It was
obvious throughout our discussions that, although there were subjects upon which there were individual differences of judgment
with regard to the method by which our objects should be obtained, there was practically at no point any serious differences
of opinion or motive as to the objects which we were seeking.

Indeed, while these debates were not made the opportunity for the expression of enthusiasm and sentiments, I think the other
members of the commission will agree with me that there was an undertone of high respect and of enthusiasm for the thing we
were trying to do which was heartening throughout everything.

Because we felt that in a way this conference did entrust into us the expression of one of its highest and most important
purposes, to see to it that the concord of the world in the future with regard to the objects of justice should not be subject
to doubt or uncertainty; that the cooperation of the great body of nations should be assured in the maintenance of peace upon
terms of honor and of international obligations.

The compulsion of that task was constantly upon us, and at no point was there shown the slightest desire to do anything but
suggest the best means to accomplish that great object. There is very great significance, therefore, in the fact that the
result was reached unanimously.

Fourteen nations were represented, among them all of those powers which for convenience we have called the Great Powers, and
among the rest a representation of the greatest variety of circumstances and interests. So that I think we are justified in
saying that the significance of the result, therefore, has the deepest of all meanings, the union of wills in a common purpose,
a union of wills which cannot be resisted and which, I dare say, no nation will run the risk of attempting to resist.

Now, as to the character of the document. While it has consumed some time to read this document, I think you will see at once
that it is very simple, and in nothing so simple as in the structure which it suggests for a league of nations, a body of
delegates, an executive council, and a permanent secretariat.

When it came to the question of determining the character of the representation in the Body of Delegates, we were all aware
of a feeling which is current throughout the world.

Inasmuch as I am stating it in the presence of the official representatives of the various governments here present, including
myself, I may say that there is a universal feeling that the world cannot rest satisfied with merely official guidance. There
has reached us through many channels the feeling that if the deliberating body of the League of Nations was merely to be a
body of officials representing the various governments, the peoples of the world would not be sure that some of the mistakes
which preoccupied officials had admittedly made might not be repeated.

It was impossible to conceive a method or an assembly so large and various as to be really representative of the great body
of the peoples of the world, because, as I roughly reckon it, we represent as we sit around this table more than 1.2 billion
people.

You cannot have a representative assembly of 1.2 billion people, but if you leave it to each government to have, if it pleases,
one or two or three representatives, though only with a single vote, it may vary its representation from time to time, not
only, but it may (originate) the choice of its several representatives [wireless here unintelligible].

Therefore we thought that this was a proper and a very prudent concession to the practically universal opinion of plain men
everywhere that they wanted the door left open to a variety of representation, instead of being confined to a single official
body with which they could or might not find themselves in sympathy.

And you will notice that this body has unlimited rights of discussion. I mean of discussion of anything that falls within
the field of international relations--and that it is especially agreed that war or international misunderstandings or anything
that may lead to friction or trouble is everybody's business, because it may affect the peace of the world.

And in order to safeguard the popular power so far as we could of this representative body, it is provided, you will notice,
that when a subject is submitted it is not to arbitration but to discussion by the Executive Council; it can, upon the initiative
of either of the parties to the dispute, be drawn out of the Executive Council on the larger form of the general Body of Delegates,
because through this instrument we are depending primarily and chiefly upon one great force, and this is the moral force of
the public opinion of the world--the pleasing and clarifying and compelling influences of publicity--so that intrigues can
no longer have their coverts; so that designs that are sinister can at anytime be drawn into the open; so that those things
that are destroyed by the light may be promptly destroyed by the overwhelming light of the universal expression of the condemnation
of the world.

Armed force is in the background in this program; but it is in the background, and, if the moral force of the world will not
suffice, the physical force of the world shall. But that is the last resort, because this is intended as a constitution of
peace, not as a league of war.

The simplicity of the document seems to me to be one of its chief virtues, because, speaking for myself, I was unable to see
the variety of circumstances with which this League would have to deal. I was unable, therefore, to plan all the machinery
that might be necessary to meet the differing and unexpected contingencies. Therefore, I should say of this document that
it is not a straitjacket but a vehicle of life.

A living thing is born, and we must see to it what clothes we put on it. It is not a vehicle of power, but a vehicle in which
power may be varied at the discretion of those who exercise it and in accordance with the changing circumstances of the time.
And yet, while it is elastic, while it is general in its terms, it is definite in the one thing that we were called upon to
make definite.

It is a definite guaranty of peace. It is a definite guaranty by word against aggression. It is a definite guaranty against
the things which have just come near bringing the whole structure of civilization into ruin.

Its purposes do not for a moment lie vague. Its purposes are declared, and its powers are unmistakable. It is not in contemplation
that this should be merely a league to secure the peace of the world. It is a league which can be used for cooperation in
any international matter.

That is the significance of the provision introduced concerning labor. There are many ameliorations of labor conditions which
can be effected by conference and discussion. I anticipate that there will be a very great usefulness in the Bureau of Labor
which it is contemplated shall be set up by the League.

Men and women and children who work have been in the background through long ages and sometimes seemed to be forgotten, while
governments have had their watchful and suspicious eyes upon the maneuvers of one another, while the thought of statesmen
has been about structural action and the larger transactions of commerce and of finance.

Now, if I may believe the picture which I see, there comes into the foreground the great body of the laboring people of the
world, the men and women and children upon whom the great burden of sustaining the world must from day to day fall, whether
we wish it to do so or not; people who go to bed tired and wake up without the stimulation of lively hope. These people will
be drawn into the field of international consultation and help, and will be among the wards of the combined governments of
the world. This is, I take leave to say, a very great step in advance in the mere conception of that.

Then, as you will notice, there is an imperative article concerning the publicity of all international agreements. Henceforth
no member of the League can call any agreement valid which it has not registered with the secretary general, in whose office,
of course, it will be subject to the examination of any body representing a member of the League. And the duty is laid upon
the secretary general to earliest possible time.

I suppose most persons who have not been conversant with the business of foreign affairs do not realize how many hundreds
of these agreements are made in a single year, and how difficult it might be to publish the more unimportant of them immediately.
How uninteresting it would be to most of the world to publish them immediately, but even they must be published just as soon
as it is possible for the secretary general to publish them.

There has been no greater advance than this, gentlemen. If you look back upon the history of the world you will see how helpless
peoples have too often been a prey to powers that had no conscience in the matter. It has been one of the many distressing
revelations of recent years that the great power which has just been, happily, defeated put intolerable burdens and injustices
upon the helpless people of some of the colonies which it annexed to itself; that its interest was rather their extermination
than their development; that the desire was to possess their land for European purposes, and not to enjoy their confidence
in order that mankind might be lifted in these places to the next higher level.

Now, the world, expressing its conscience in law, says there is an end of that, that our consciences shall be settled to this
thing. States will be picked out which have already shown that they can exercise a conscience in this matter, and under their
tutelage the helpless peoples of the world will come into a new light and into a new hope.

In the presence of this vast assemblage of my countrymen I am about to supplement and seal by the oath which I shall take
the manifestation of the will of a great and free people. In the exercise of their power and right of self-government they
have committed to one of their fellow-citizens a supreme and sacred trust, and he here consecrates himself to their service.

This impressive ceremony adds little to the solemn sense of responsibility with which I contemplate the duty I owe to all
the people of the land. Nothing can relieve me from anxiety lest by any act of mine their interests may suffer, and nothing
is needed to strengthen my resolution to engage every faculty and effort in the promotion of their welfare.

Amid the din of party strife the people's choice was made, but its attendant circumstances have demonstrated anew the strength
and safety of a government by the people. In each succeeding year it more clearly appears that our democratic principle needs
no apology, and that in its fearless and faithful application is to be found the surest guaranty of good government.

But the best results in the operation of a government wherein every citizen has a share largely depend upon a proper limitation
of purely partisan zeal and effort and a correct appreciation of the time when the heat of the partisan should be merged in
the patriotism of the citizen.

To-day the executive branch of the Government is transferred to new keeping. But this is still the Government of all the people,
and it should be none the less an object of their affectionate solicitude. At this hour the animosities of political strife,
the bitterness of partisan defeat, and the exultation of partisan triumph should be supplanted by an ungrudging acquiescence
in the popular will and a sober, conscientious concern for the general weal. Moreover, if from this hour we cheerfully and
honestly abandon all sectional prejudice and distrust, and determine, with manly confidence in one another, to work out harmoniously
the achievements of our national destiny, we shall deserve to realize all the benefits which our happy form of government
can bestow.

On this auspicious occasion we may well renew the pledge of our devotion to the Constitution, which, launched by the founders
of the Republic and consecrated by their prayers and patriotic devotion, has for almost a century borne the hopes and the
aspirations of a great people through prosperity and peace and through the shock of foreign conflicts and the perils of domestic
strife and vicissitudes.

By the Father of his Country our Constitution was commended for adoption as "the result of a spirit of amity and mutual concession."
In that same spirit it should be administered, in order to promote the lasting welfare of the country and to secure the full
measure of its priceless benefits to us and to those who will succeed to the blessings of our national life. The large variety
of diverse and competing interests subject to Federal control, persistently seeking the recognition of their claims, need
give us no fear that "the greatest good to the greatest number" will fail to be accomplished if in the halls of national legislation
that spirit of amity and mutual concession shall prevail in which the Constitution had its birth. If this involves the surrender
or postponement of private interests and the abandonment of local advantages, compensation will be found in the assurance
that the common interest is subserved and the general welfare advanced.

In the discharge of my official duty I shall endeavor to be guided by a just and unstrained construction of the Constitution,
a careful observance of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States
or to the people, and by a cautious appreciation of those functions which by the Constitution and laws have been especially
assigned to the executive branch of the Government.

But he who takes the oath today to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States only assumes the solemn
obligation which every patriotic citizen-on the farm, in the workshop, in the busy marts of trade, and everywhere-should share
with him. The Constitution which prescribes his oath, my countrymen, is yours; the Government you have chosen him to administer
for a time is yours; the suffrage which executes the will of freemen is yours; the laws and the entire scheme of our civil
rule, from the town meeting to the State capitals and the national capital, is yours. Your every voter, as surely as your
Chief Magistrate, under the same high sanction, though in a different sphere, exercises a public trust. Nor is this all. Every
citizen owes to the country a vigilant watch and close scrutiny of its public servants and a fair and reasonable estimate
of their fidelity and usefulness. Thus is the people's will impressed upon the whole framework of our civil polity-municipal,
State, and Federal; and this is the price of our liberty and the inspiration of our faith in the Republic.

It is the duty of those serving the people in public place to closely limit public expenditures to the actual needs of the
Government economically administered, because this bounds the right of the Government to exact tribute from the earnings of
labor or the property of the citizen, and because public extravagance begets extravagance among the people. We should never
be ashamed of the simplicity and prudential economies which are best suited to the operation of a republican form of government
and most compatible with the mission of the American people. Those who are selected for a limited time to manage public affairs
are still of the people, and may do much by their example to encourage, consistently with the dignity of their official functions,
that plain way of life which among their fellow-citizens aids integrity and promotes thrift and prosperity.

The genius of our institutions, the needs of our people in their home life, and the attention which is demanded for the settlement
and development of the resources of our vast territory dictate the scrupulous avoidance of any departure from that foreign
policy commended by the history, the traditions, and the prosperity of our Republic. It is the policy of independence, favored
by our position and defended by our known love of justice and by our power. It is the policy of peace suitable to our interests.
It is the policy of neutrality, rejecting any share in foreign broils and ambitions upon other continents and repelling their
intrusion here. It is the policy of Monroe and of Washington and Jefferson-"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all
nations; entangling alliance with none."

A due regard for the interests and prosperity of all the people demands that our finances shall be established upon such a
sound and sensible basis as shall secure the safety and confidence of business interests and make the wage of labor sure and
steady, and that our system of revenue shall be so adjusted as to relieve the people of unnecessary taxation, having a due
regard to the interests of capital invested and workingmen employed in American industries, and preventing the accumulation
of a surplus in the Treasury to tempt extravagance and waste.

Care for the property of the nation and for the needs of future settlers requires that the public domain should be protected
from purloining schemes and unlawful occupation.

The conscience of the people demands that the Indians within our boundaries shall be fairly and honestly treated as wards
of the Government and their education and civilization promoted with a view to their ultimate citizenship, and that polygamy
in the Territories, destructive of the family relation and offensive to the moral sense of the civilized world, shall be repressed.

The laws should be rigidly enforced which prohibit the immigration of a servile class to compete with American labor, with
no intention of acquiring citizenship, and bringing with them and retaining habits and customs repugnant to our civilization.

The people demand reform in the administration of the Government and the application of business principles to public affairs.
As a means to this end, civil-service reform should be in good faith enforced. Our citizens have the right to protection from
the incompetency of public employees who hold their places solely as the reward of partisan service, and from the corrupting
influence of those who promise and the vicious methods of those who expect such rewards; and those who worthily seek public
employment have the right to insist that merit and competency shall be recognized instead of party subserviency or the surrender
of honest political belief.

In the administration of a government pledged to do equal and exact justice to all men there should be no pretext for anxiety
touching the protection of the freedmen in their rights or their security in the enjoyment of their privileges under the Constitution
and its amendments. All discussion as to their fitness for the place accorded to them as American citizens is idle and unprofitable
except as it suggests the necessity for their improvement. The fact that they are citizens entitles them to all the rights
due to that relation and charges them with all its duties, obligations, and responsibilities.

These topics and the constant and ever-varying wants of an active and enterprising population may well receive the attention
and the patriotic endeavor of all who make and execute the Federal law. Our duties are practical and call for industrious
application, an intelligent perception of the claims of public office, and, above all, a firm determination, by united action,
to secure to all the people of the land the full benefits of the best form of government ever vouchsafed to man. And let us
not trust to human effort alone, but humbly acknowledging the power and goodness of Almighty God, who presides over the destiny
of nations, and who has at all times been revealed in our country's history, let us invoke His aid and His blessings upon
our labors.

The address by ex-President Hoover, from which the following selection is taken, was delivered to the Republican National
Convention in Cleveland on June 10, 1936. Although Hoover was still the dominant figure in the Party -- as the wild and prolonged
demonstration touched off by his appearance attested -- the Republicans nominated the only Republican governor to be reelected
in 1934, Alfred M. Landon of Kansas. Landon referred to himself as a "constitutional liberal," but Hoover succeeded in blunting Landon's liberal edge
by injecting much of his own philosophy into the subsequent election campaign. Uncompromising opponents of the New Deal such
as Hoover constantly compared the rise of Roosevelt in America to the rise of dictatorships abroad.

In this room rests the greatest responsibility that has come to a body of Americans in three generations. In the lesser sense
this is a convention of a great political party. But in the larger sense it is a convention of Americans to determine the
fate of those ideals for which this nation was founded. That far transcends all partisanship.

There are elemental currents which make or break the fate of nations. There is a moral purpose in the universe. Those forces
which affect the vitality and the soul of a people will control their destinies. The sum of years of public service in these
currents is the overwhelming conviction of their transcendent importance over the more transitory, even though difficult,
issues of national life.

I have given about four years to research into the New Deal, trying to determine what its ultimate objectives were, what sort
of a system it is imposing on this country.

To some people it appears to be a strange interlude in American history in that it has no philosophy, that it is sheer opportunism,
that it is a muddle of a spoils system, of emotional economics, of reckless adventure, of unctuous claims to a monopoly of
human sympathy, of greed for power, of a desire for popular acclaim and an aspiration to make the front pages of the newspapers.
That is the most charitable view.

To other people it appears to be a cold-blooded attempt by starry-eyed boys to infect the American people by a mixture of
European ideas, flavored with our native predilection to get something for nothing.

You can choose either one you like best. But the first is the road of chaos which leads to the second. Both of these roads
lead over the same grim precipice that is the crippling and possibly the destruction of the freedom of men. Which of these
interpretations is accurate is even disputed by alumni of the New Deal who have graduated for conscience's sake or have graduated
by request.

In central Europe the march of Socialist or Fascist dictatorships and their destruction of liberty did not set out with guns
and armies. Dictators began their ascent to the seats of power through the elections provided by liberal institutions. Their
weapons were promise and hate. They offered the mirage of Utopia to those in distress. They flung the poison of class hatred.
They may not have maimed the bodies of men, but they maimed their souls.

The 1932 campaign was a pretty good imitation of this first stage of European tactics. You may recall the promises of the
abundant life, the propaganda of hate.

Once seated in office, the first demand of these European despotisms was for power and "action." Legislatures were told they
"must" delegate their authorities. Their free debate was suppressed. The powers demanded are always the same pattern. They
all adopt planned economy. They regimented industry and agriculture. They put the government into business. They engaged in
gigantic government expenditures. They created vast organizations of spoils henchmen and subsidized dependents. They corrupted
currency and credit. They drugged the thinking of the people with propaganda at the people's expense.

If there are any items in this stage in the march of European collectivism that the New Deal has not imitated it must have
been an oversight.

But at this point this parallel with Europe halts -- at least for the present. The American people should thank Almighty God
for the Constitution and the Supreme Court. They should be grateful to a courageous press.

You might contemplate what would have happened if Mr. Roosevelt could have appointed enough Supreme Court justices in the
first year of his administration. Suppose these New Deal acts had remained upon the statute books. We would have been a regimented
people. Have you any assurance that he will not have the appointments if he is reelected? . . .

So much for the evidence that the New Deal is a definite attempt to replace the American system of freedom with some sort
of European planned existence. But let us assume that the explanation is simply hit-and-run opportunism, spoils system, and
muddle.

We can well take a moment to explore the prospects of American ideals of liberty and self-government under that philosophy.
We may take only seven short examples:

The Supreme Court has reversed some ten or twelve of the New Deal major enactments. Many of these acts were a violation of
the rights of men and of self-government. Despite the sworn duty of the Executive and Congress to defend these rights, they
have sought to take them into their own hands. That is an attack on the foundations of freedom.

More than this, the independence of the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Executive are pillars at the door of liberty.
For three years the word "must" has invaded the independence of Congress. And the Congress has abandoned its responsibility
to check even the expenditures of money. They have turned open appropriations into personal power. These are destructions
of the very safeguards of free people.

We have seen these gigantic expenditures and this torrent of waste pile up a national debt which two generations cannot repay.
One time I told a Democratic Congress that "You cannot spend yourselves into prosperity." You recall that advice did not take
then. It hasn't taken yet.

Billions have been spent to prime the economic pump. It did employ a horde of paid officials upon the pump handle. We have
seen the frantic attempts to find new taxes on the rich. Yet three-quarters of the bill will be sent to the average man and
the poor. He and his wife and his grandchildren will be giving a quarter of all their working days to pay taxes. Freedom to
work for himself is changed into a slavery of work for the follies of government.

We have seen an explosive inflation of bank credits by this government borrowing. We have seen varied steps toward currency
inflation that have already enriched the speculator and deprived the poor. If this is to continue, the end result is the tears
and anguish of universal bankruptcy and distress. No democracy in history has survived the final stages of inflation.

We have seen the building up of a horde of political officials. We have seen the pressures upon the helpless and destitute
to trade political support for relief. Both are a pollution of the very fountains of liberty.

We have seen the most elemental violation of economic law and experience. The New Deal forgets it is solely by production
of more goods and more varieties of goods and services that we advance the standard of living and security of men. If we constantly
decrease costs and prices and keep up earnings, the production of plenty will be more and more widely distributed. These laws
may be restitched in new phrases but they are the very shoes of human progress.

We had so triumphed in this long climb of mankind toward plenty that we had reached Mount Pisgah, where we looked over the
promised land of abolished poverty. Then men began to quarrel over the division of the goods. The depression produced by war
destruction temporarily checked our march toward the promised land.

Then came the little prophets of the New Deal. They announce the striking solution that the way out is to produce less and
to increase prices so that people can buy less. They have kept on providing some new restriction or burden or fright down
to a week ago.

At least it has enabled the New Deal to take a few hundred thousand earnest party workers to the promised land. It takes the
rest of us for a ride into the wilderness of unemployment.

Can democracy stand the strain of Mother Hubbard economics for long? Will there be anything left in the economic cupboard
but a bone? . . .

The New Deal may be a revolutionary design to replace the American system with despotism. It may be the dream stuff of a false
liberalism. It may be the valor of muddle. Their relationship to each other, however, is exactly the sistership of the witches
who brewed the caldron of powerful trouble for Macbeth. Their product is the poisoning of Americanism.

The President has constantly reiterated that he will not retreat. For months, to be sure, there has been a strange quiet.
Just as the last campaign was fought on promises that have been broken, so apparently this campaign is to be slipped through
by evasion.

But the American people have the right to know now, while they still have power to act. What is going to be done after election
with these measures which the Constitution forbids and the people by their votes have never authorized? What do the New Dealers
propose to do with these unstable currencies, unbalanced budgets, debts and taxes? Fifty words would make it clear. Surely
the propaganda agencies which emit half a million words a day could find room for these 50. I noticed they recently spent
300 words on how to choose a hat. It is slightly more important to know the fate of a nation. . . .

The Republican Party must achieve true social betterment. But we must produce measures that will not work confusion and disappointment.
We must propose a real approach to social evils, not the prescription for them, by quacks, of poison in place of remedy.

We must achieve freedom in the economic field. We have grave problems in relation of government to agriculture and business.
Monopoly is only one of them. The Republican Party is against the greed for power of the wanton boys who waste the people's
savings. But it must be equally adamant against the greed for power and exploitation in the seekers of special privilege.
At one time I said: "We can no more have economic power without checks and balances than we can have political power without
checks and balances. Either one leads to tyranny."

The Republican Party must be a party that accepts the challenge of each new day. The last word in human accomplishment has
not been spoken. The last step in human progress has not been made. We welcome change when it will produce a fairer, more
just, and satisfying civilization. But change which destroys the safeguards of free men and women are only apples of Sodom.

Great calamities have come to the whole world. These forces have reached into every calling and every cottage. They have brought
tragedy and suffering to millions of firesides. I have great sympathy for those who honestly reach for short cuts to the immensity
of our problems.

While design of the structure of betterment for the common man must be inspired by the human heart, it can only be achieved
by the intellect. It can only be builded by using the mold of justice, by laying brick upon brick from the materials of scientific
research; by the painstaking sifting of truth from the collection of fact and experience. Any other mold is distorted; any
other bricks are without straw; any other foundations are sand. That great structure of human progress can be built only by
free men and women.

The gravest task which confronts the party is to regenerate these freedoms.

There are principles which neither tricks of organization, nor the rigors of depression, nor the march of time, nor New Dealers,
nor Socialists, nor Fascists can change. There are some principles which came into the universe along with the shooting stars
of which worlds are made, and they have always been and ever will be true. Such are the laws of mathematics, the law of gravitation,
the existence of God and the ceaseless struggle of humankind to be free.

Throughout the centuries of history, man's vigil and his quest have been to be free. For this, the best and bravest of earth
have fought and died. To embody human liberty in workable government, America was born. Shall we keep that faith? Must we
condemn the unborn generations to fight again and to die for the right to be free?

There are some principles that cannot be compromised. Either we shall have a society based upon ordered liberty and the initiative
of the individual, or we shall have a planned society that means dictation, no matter what you call it or who does it. There
is no halfway ground. They cannot be mixed. Government must either release the powers of the individual for honest achievement
or the very forces it creates will drive it inexorably to lay its paralyzing hand more and more heavily upon individual effort.

Less than twenty years ago we accepted those ideals as the air we breathed. We fought a great war for their protection. We
took upon ourselves obligations of billions. We buried our sons in foreign soil. But in this score of years we have seen the
advance of collectivism and its inevitable tyranny in more than half the civilized world. In this thundering era of world
crisis distracted America stands confused and uncertain.

President Clinton, distinguished guests and my fellow citizens, the peaceful transfer of authority is rare in history, yet
common in our country. With a simple oath, we affirm old traditions and make new beginnings.

As I begin, I thank President Clinton for his service to our nation.

And I thank Vice President Gore for a contest conducted with spirit and ended with grace. I am honored and humbled to stand
here, where so many of America's leaders have come before me, and so many will follow.

We have a place, all of us, in a long story--a story we continue, but whose end we will not see. It is the story of a new
world that became a friend and liberator of the old, a story of a slave-holding society that became a servant of freedom,
the story of a power that went into the world to protect but not possess, to defend but not to conquer.

It is the American story--a story of flawed and fallible people, united across the generations by grand and enduring ideals.

The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American promise that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that
no insignificant person was ever born.

Americans are called to enact this promise in our lives and in our laws. And though our nation has sometimes halted, and sometimes
delayed, we must follow no other course.

Through much of the last century, America's faith in freedom and democracy was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon
the wind, taking root in many nations.

Our democratic faith is more than the creed of our country, it is the inborn hope of our humanity, an ideal we carry but do
not own, a trust we bear and pass along. And even after nearly 225 years, we have a long way yet to travel.

While many of our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise, even the justice, of our own country. The ambitions of some
Americans are limited by failing schools and hidden prejudice and the circumstances of their birth. And sometimes our differences
run so deep, it seems we share a continent, but not a country.

We do not accept this, and we will not allow it. Our unity, our union, is the serious work of leaders and citizens in every
generation. And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity.

I know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves who creates us equal in His image.

And we are confident in principles that unite and lead us onward.

America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift
us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens. Every child must be taught these principles. Every citizen
must uphold them. And every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.

Today, we affirm a new commitment to live out our nation's promise through civility, courage, compassion and character.

America, at its best, matches a commitment to principle with a concern for civility. A civil society demands from each of
us good will and respect, fair dealing and forgiveness.

Some seem to believe that our politics can afford to be petty because, in a time of peace, the stakes of our debates appear
small.

But the stakes for America are never small. If our country does not lead the cause of freedom, it will not be led. If we do
not turn the hearts of children toward knowledge and character, we will lose their gifts and undermine their idealism. If
we permit our economy to drift and decline, the vulnerable will suffer most.

We must live up to the calling we share. Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over
cynicism, of community over chaos. And this commitment, if we keep it, is a way to shared accomplishment.

America, at its best, is also courageous.

Our national courage has been clear in times of depression and war, when defending common dangers defined our common good.
Now we must choose if the example of our fathers and mothers will inspire us or condemn us. We must show courage in a time
of blessing by confronting problems instead of passing them on to future generations.

Together, we will reclaim America's schools, before ignorance and apathy claim more young lives.

We will reform Social Security and Medicare, sparing our children from struggles we have the power to prevent. And we will
reduce taxes, to recover the momentum of our economy and reward the effort and enterprise of working Americans.

We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors. The enemies of liberty and our
country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power
that favors freedom. We will defend our allies and our interests. We will show purpose without arrogance. We will meet aggression
and bad faith with resolve and strength. And to all nations, we will speak for the values that gave our nation birth.

America, at its best, is compassionate. In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy
of our nation's promise.

And whatever our views of its cause, we can agree that children at risk are not at fault. Abandonment and abuse are not acts
of God, they are failures of love.

And the proliferation of prisons, however necessary, is no substitute for hope and order in our souls.

Where there is suffering, there is duty. Americans in need are not strangers, they are citizens, not problems, but priorities.
And all of us are diminished when any are hopeless.

Government has great responsibilities for public safety and public health, for civil rights and common schools. Yet compassion
is the work of a nation, not just a government.

And some needs and hurts are so deep they will only respond to a mentor's touch or a pastor's prayer. Church and charity,
synagogue and mosque lend our communities their humanity, and they will have an honored place in our plans and in our laws.

Many in our country do not know the pain of poverty, but we can listen to those who do. And I can pledge our nation to a goal:
When we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side.

America, at its best, is a place where personal responsibility is valued and expected.

Encouraging responsibility is not a search for scapegoats, it is a call to conscience. And though it requires sacrifice, it
brings a deeper fulfillment. We find the fullness of life not only in options, but in commitments. And we find that children
and community are the commitments that set us free.

Our public interest depends on private character, on civic duty and family bonds and basic fairness, on uncounted, unhonored
acts of decency which give direction to our freedom.

Sometimes in life we are called to do great things. But as a saint of our times has said, every day we are called to do small
things with great love. The most important tasks of a democracy are done by everyone.

I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with civility, to pursue the public interest with courage,
to speak for greater justice and compassion, to call for responsibility and try to live it as well.

In all these ways, I will bring the values of our history to the care of our times.

What you do is as important as anything government does. I ask you to seek a common good beyond your comfort; to defend needed
reforms against easy attacks; to serve your nation, beginning with your neighbor. I ask you to be citizens: citizens, not
spectators; citizens, not subjects; responsible citizens, building communities of service and a nation of character.

Americans are generous and strong and decent, not because we believe in ourselves, but because we hold beliefs beyond ourselves.
When this spirit of citizenship is missing, no government program can replace it. When this spirit is present, no wrong can
stand against it.

After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Virginia statesman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson: “We know the race
is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?”

Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate. But the themes of this
day he would know: our nation's grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity.

We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose. Yet his purpose is achieved in our duty, and
our duty is fulfilled in service to one another.

Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today, to make our country more just and generous, to
affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.

This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.

President Benjamin Harrison's policy of overseas expansion in search of foreign markets coincided with the desire of the white
businessmen of Hawaii for annexation by the United States. Annexation would provide stable government, but, more to the point, it would free the
islands of high American tariffs. With the support and encouragement of the administration, and with the use of a small number
of U.S. troops, the Hawaiian monarchy was overthrown early in 1893 and a provisional government established. Harrison recognized
the new regime and sent a treaty of annexation to the Senate for ratification. But his term of office was nearly over, and
Grover Cleveland, who was to be president in three weeks, held up ratification until he could study the circumstances that
had led to the treaty. When he learned of them, he withdrew the treaty from deliberation. The selections printed below are
from Harrison's message transmitting the treaty to the Senate on February 15, 1893, and Cleveland's message of the following
December 18 withdrawing it from consideration.

Benjamin Harrison

For Annexation

I transmit herewith, with a view to its ratification, a treaty of annexation concluded on the 14th day of February, 1893,
between John W. Foster, secretary of state, who was duly empowered to act in that behalf on the part of the United States,
and Lorin A. Thurston, W. R. Castle, W. C. Wilder, C. L. Carter, and Joseph Marsden, the commissioners on the part of the
government of the Hawaiian Islands. The provisional treaty, it will be observed, does not attempt to deal in detail with the
questions that grow out of the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States. The commissioners representing the
Hawaiian government have consented to leave to the future and to the just and benevolent purposes of the United States the
adjustment of all such questions.

I do not deem it necessary to discuss at any length the conditions which have resulted in this decisive action. It has been
the policy of the administration not only to respect but to encourage the continuance of an independent government in the
Hawaiian Islands so long as it afforded suitable guarantees for the protection of life and property and maintained a stability
and strength that gave adequate security against the domination of any other power. The moral support of this government has
continually manifested itself in the most friendly diplomatic relations and in many acts of courtesy to the Hawaiian rulers.

The overthrow of the monarchy was not in any way promoted by this government, but had its origin in what seems to have been
a reactionary and revolutionary policy on the part of Queen Liliuokalani, which put in serious peril not only the large and
preponderating interests of the United States in the islands but all foreign interests, and, indeed, the decent administration
of civil affairs and the peace of the islands. It is quite evident that the monarchy had become effete and the queen's government
so weak and inadequate as to be the prey of designing and unscrupulous persons. The restoration of Queen Liliuokalani to her
throne is undesirable, if not impossible, and unless actively supported by the United States would be accompanied by serious
disaster and the disorganization of all business interests. The influence and interest of the United States in the islands
must be increased and not diminished.

Only two courses are now open--one the establishment of a protectorate by the United States, and the other annexation, full
and complete. I think the latter course, which has been adopted in the treaty, will be highly promotive of the best interests
of the Hawaiian people and is the only one that will adequately secure the interests of the United States. These interests
are not wholly selfish. It is essential that none of the other great powers shall secure these islands. Such a possession
would not consist with our safety and with the peace of the world. This view of the situation is so apparent and conclusive
that no protest has been heard from any government against proceedings looking to annexation. Every foreign representative
at Honolulu promptly acknowledged the Provisional Government, and I think there is a general concurrence in the opinion that
the deposed queen ought not to be restored.

Grover Cleveland

Against Annexation

When the present administration entered upon its duties, the Senate had under consideration a treaty providing for the annexation
of the Hawaiian Islands to the territory of the United States. Surely under our Constitution and laws the enlargement of our
limits is a manifestation of the highest attribute of sovereignty, and if entered upon as an executive act, all things relating
to the transaction should be clear and free from suspicion. Additional importance attached to this particular treaty of annexation
because it contemplated a departure from unbroken American tradition in providing for the addition to our territory of islands
of the sea more than 2,000 miles removed from our nearest coast....I conceived it to be my duty, therefore, to withdraw the
treaty from the Senate for examination, and meanwhile to cause an accurate, full, and impartial investigation to be made of
the facts attending the subversion of the constitutional government of Hawaii and the installment in its place of the Provisional
Government....

As I apprehend the situation, we are brought face to face with the following conditions:

The lawful government of Hawaii was overthrown without the drawing of a sword or the firing of a shot by a process every step
of which, it may safely be asserted, is directly traceable to and dependent for its success upon the agency of the United
States acting through its diplomatic and naval representatives.

But for the notorious predilections of the United States minister for annexation, the Committee of Safety, which should be
called the Committee of Annexation, would never have existed.But for the landing of the United States forces upon false pretexts
respecting the danger to life and property, the committee would never have exposed themselves to the pains and penalties of
treason by undertaking the subversion of the queen's government.

But for the presence of the United States forces in the immediate vicinity and in position to afford all needed protection
and support, the committee would not have proclaimed the Provisional Government from the steps of the government building.

And, finally, but for the lawless occupation of Honolulu under false pretexts by the United States forces, and but for Minister
Stevens' recognition of the Provisional Government when the United States forces were its sole support and constituted its
only military strength, the queen and her government would never have yielded to the Provisional Government, even for a time
and for the sole purpose of submitting her case to the enlightened justice of the United States.

Believing, therefore, that the United States could not, under the circumstances disclosed, annex the islands without justly
incurring the imputation of acquiring them by unjustifiable methods, I shall not again submit the treaty of annexation to
the Senate for its consideration, and in the instructions to Minister Willis, a copy of which accompanies this message, I
have directed him to so inform the Provisional Government.

But in the present instance our duty does not, in my opinion, end with refusing to consummate this questionable transaction.
It has been the boast of our government that it seeks to do justice in all things without regard to the strength or weakness
of those with whom it deals. I mistake the American people if they favor the odious doctrine that there is no such thing as
international morality; that there is one law for a strong nation and another for a weak one, and that even by indirection
a strong power may with impunity despoil a weak one of its territory.

By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority
of Congress, the government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown. A substantial wrong has thus
been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor
to repair. The Provisional Government has not assumed a republican or other constitutional form, but has remained a mere executive
council or oligarchy, set up without the assent of the people. It has not sought to find a permanent basis of popular support
and has given no evidence of an intention to do so. Indeed, the representatives of that government assert that the people
of Hawaii are unfit for popular government and frankly avow that they can be best ruled by arbitrary or despotic power.

The law of nations is founded upon reason and justice, and the rules of conduct governing individual relations between citizens
or subjects of a civilized state are equally applicable as between enlightened nations. The considerations that international
law is without a court for its enforcement and that obedience to its commands practically depends upon good faith instead
of upon the mandate of a superior tribunal only give additional sanction to the law itself and brand any deliberate infraction
of it not merely as a wrong but as a disgrace. A man of true honor protects the unwritten word which binds his conscience
more scrupulously, if possible, than he does the bond a breach of which subjects him to legal liabilities, and the United
States, in aiming to maintain itself as one of the most enlightened nations, would do its citizens gross injustice if it applied
to its international relations any other than a high standard of honor and morality.

On that ground the United States cannot properly be put in the position of countenancing a wrong after its commission any
more than in that of consenting to it in advance. On that ground it cannot allow itself to refuse to redress an injury inflicted
through an abuse of power by officers clothed with its authority and wearing its uniform; and on the same ground, if a feeble
but friendly state is in danger of being robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by a misuse of the name and power
of the United States, the United States cannot fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort to
make all possible reparation.

These principles apply to the present case with irresistible force when the special conditions of the queen's surrender of
her sovereignty are recalled. She surrendered, not to the Provisional Government but to the United States. She surrendered,
not absolutely and permanently but temporarily and conditionally until such time as the facts could be considered by the United
States. Furthermore, the Provisional Government acquiesced in her surrender in that manner and on those terms, not only by
tacit consent but through the positive acts of some members of the government who urged her peaceable submission, not merely
to avoid bloodshed but because she could place implicit reliance upon the justice of the United States and that the whole
subject would be finally considered at Washington.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, James D. Richardson, ed., Washington, 1896-1899, Vol. IX, pp. 348-349, 460-472.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Speaker, members of my family and friends, my countrymen, and the
friends of my country, wherever they may be, we meet again, as upon a like moment four years ago, and again you have witnessed
my solemn oath of service to you.

I, too, am a witness, today testifying in your name to the principles and purposes to which we, as a people, are pledged.

Before all else, we seek, upon our common labor as a nation, the blessings of Almighty God. And the hopes in our hearts fashion
the deepest prayers of our whole people.

May we pursue the right--without self-righteousness.

May we know unity--without conformity.

May we grow in strength--without pride in self.

May we, in our dealings with all peoples of the earth, ever speak truth and serve justice.

And so shall America--in the sight of all men of good will--prove true to the honorable purposes that bind and rule us as
a people in all this time of trial through which we pass.

We live in a land of plenty, but rarely has this earth known such peril as today.

In our nation work and wealth abound. Our population grows. Commerce crowds our rivers and rails, our skies, harbors, and
highways. Our soil is fertile, our agriculture productive. The air rings with the song of our industry--rolling mills and
blast furnaces, dynamos, dams, and assembly lines--the chorus of America the bountiful.

This is our home--yet this is not the whole of our world. For our world is where our full destiny lies--with men, of all people,
and all nations, who are or would be free. And for them--and so for us--this is no time of ease or of rest.

In too much of the earth there is want, discord, danger. New forces and new nations stir and strive across the earth, with
power to bring, by their fate, great good or great evil to the free world's future. From the deserts of North Africa to the
islands of the South Pacific one third of all mankind has entered upon an historic struggle for a new freedom; freedom from
grinding poverty. Across all continents, nearly a billion people seek, sometimes almost in desperation, for the skills and
knowledge and assistance by which they may satisfy from their own resources, the material wants common to all mankind.

No nation, however old or great, escapes this tempest of change and turmoil. Some, impoverished by the recent World War, seek
to restore their means of livelihood. In the heart of Europe, Germany still stands tragically divided. So is the whole continent
divided. And so, too, is all the world.

The divisive force is International Communism and the power that it controls.

The designs of that power, dark in purpose, are clear in practice. It strives to seal forever the fate of those it has enslaved.
It strives to break the ties that unite the free. And it strives to capture--to exploit for its own greater power--all forces
of change in the world, especially the needs of the hungry and the hopes of the oppressed.

Yet the world of International Communism has itself been shaken by a fierce and mighty force: the readiness of men who love
freedom to pledge their lives to that love. Through the night of their bondage, the unconquerable will of heroes has struck
with the swift, sharp thrust of lightning. Budapest is no longer merely the name of a city; henceforth it is a new and shining
symbol of man's yearning to be free.

Thus across all the globe there harshly blow the winds of change. And, we--though fortunate be our lot--know that we can never
turn our backs to them.

We look upon this shaken earth, and we declare our firm and fixed purpose--the building of a peace with justice in a world
where moral law prevails.

The building of such a peace is a bold and solemn purpose. To proclaim it is easy. To serve it will be hard. And to attain
it, we must be aware of its full meaning--and ready to pay its full price.

We know clearly what we seek, and why.

We seek peace, knowing that peace is the climate of freedom. And now, as in no other age, we seek it because we have been
warned, by the power of modern weapons, that peace may be the only climate possible for human life itself.

Yet this peace we seek cannot be born of fear alone: it must be rooted in the lives of nations. There must be justice, sensed
and shared by all peoples, for, without justice the world can know only a tense and unstable truce. There must be law, steadily
invoked and respected by all nations, for without law, the world promises only such meager justice as the pity of the strong
upon the weak. But the law of which we speak, comprehending the values of freedom, affirms the equality of all nations, great
and small.

Splendid as can be the blessings of such a peace, high will be its cost: in toil patiently sustained, in help honorably given,
in sacrifice calmly borne.

We are called to meet the price of this peace.

To counter the threat of those who seek to rule by force, we must pay the costs of our own needed military strength, and help
to build the security of others.

We must use our skills and knowledge and, at times, our substance, to help others rise from misery, however far the scene
of suffering may be from our shores. For wherever in the world a people knows desperate want, there must appear at least the
spark of hope, the hope of progress--or there will surely rise at last the flames of conflict.

We recognize and accept our own deep involvement in the destiny of men everywhere. We are accordingly pledged to honor, and
to strive to fortify, the authority of the United Nations. For in that body rests the best hope of our age for the assertion
of that law by which all nations may live in dignity.

And, beyond this general resolve, we are called to act a responsible role in the world's great concerns or conflicts--whether
they touch upon the affairs of a vast region, the fate of an island in the Pacific, or the use of a canal in the Middle East.
Only in respecting the hopes and cultures of others will we practice the equality of all nations. Only as we show willingness
and wisdom in giving counsel--in receiving counsel--and in sharing burdens, will we wisely perform the work of peace.

For one truth must rule all we think and all we do. No people can live to itself alone. The unity of all who dwell in freedom
is their only sure defense. The economic need of all nations--in mutual dependence--makes isolation an impossibility; not
even America's prosperity could long survive if other nations did not also prosper. No nation can longer be a fortress, lone
and strong and safe. And any people, seeking such shelter for themselves, can now build only their own prison.

Our pledge to these principles is constant, because we believe in their rightness.

We do not fear this world of change. America is no stranger to much of its spirit. Everywhere we see the seeds of the same
growth that America itself has known. The American experiment has, for generations, fired the passion and the courage of millions
elsewhere seeking freedom, equality, and opportunity. And the American story of material progress has helped excite the longing
of all needy peoples for some satisfaction of their human wants. These hopes that we have helped to inspire, we can help to
fulfill.

In this confidence, we speak plainly to all peoples.

We cherish our friendship with all nations that are or would be free. We respect, no less, their independence. And when, in
time of want or peril, they ask our help, they may honorably receive it; for we no more seek to buy their sovereignty than
we would sell our own. Sovereignty is never bartered among freemen.

We honor the aspirations of those nations which, now captive, long for freedom. We seek neither their military alliance nor
any artificial imitation of our society. And they can know the warmth of the welcome that awaits them when, as must be, they
join again the ranks of freedom.

We honor, no less in this divided world than in a less tormented time, the people of Russia. We do not dread, rather do we
welcome, their progress in education and industry. We wish them success in their demands for more intellectual freedom, greater
security before their own laws, fuller enjoyment of the rewards of their own toil. For as such things come to pass, the more
certain will be the coming of that day when our peoples may freely meet in friendship.

So we voice our hope and our belief that we can help to heal this divided world. Thus may the nations cease to live in trembling
before the menace of force. Thus may the weight of fear and the weight of arms be taken from the burdened shoulders of mankind.

This, nothing less, is the labor to which we are called and our strength dedicated.

And so the prayer of our people carries far beyond our own frontiers, to the wide world of our duty and our destiny.

May the light of freedom, coming to all darkened lands, flame brightly--until at last the darkness is no more.

May the turbulence of our age yield to a true time of peace, when men and nations shall share a life that honors the dignity
of each, the brotherhood of all.

In his Farewell Address, written with the help of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney and delivered March 4, 1837, Andrew Jackson reviewed the accomplishments of his administration and explained the motivation
of some of his policies. He looked back with satisfaction and prophesied the continuation of his program under his handpicked
successor, Martin Van Buren. Nineteenth-century historians did not view Jackson's eight years in office so complacently. An
early biographer, James Parton, pointed to some of the contradictions in his character and in his achievements. Jackson “was
a patriot and a traitor. He was one of the greatest generals and wholly ignorant of the art of war....The first of statesmen,
he never devised, he never framed a measure....A most law-defying, law-obeying citizen....A democrat autocrat. An urban savage.
An atrocious saint.”

Being about to retire finally from public life, I beg leave to offer you my grateful thanks for the many proofs of kindness
and confidence which I have received at your hands. It has been my fortune, in the discharge of public duties, civil and military,
frequently to have found myself in difficult and trying situations where prompt decision and energetic action were necessary
and where the interest of the country required that high responsibilities should be fearlessly encountered; and it is with
the deepest emotions of gratitude that I acknowledge the continued and unbroken confidence with which you have sustained me
in every trial.

My public life has been a long one, and I cannot hope that it has, at all times, been free from errors. But I have the consolation
of knowing that, if mistakes have been committed, they have not seriously injured the country I so anxiously endeavored to
serve; and, at the moment when I surrender my last public trust, I leave this great people prosperous and happy, in the full
enjoyment of liberty and peace, and honored and respected by every nation of the world.

If my humble efforts have, in any degree, contributed to preserve to you these blessings, I have been more than rewarded by
the honors you have heaped upon me; and, above all, by the generous confidence with which you have supported me in every peril,
and with which you have continued to animate and cheer my path to the closing hour of my political life. The time has now
come when advanced age and a broken frame warn me to retire from public concerns; but the recollection of the many favors
you have bestowed upon me is engraven upon my heart, and I have felt that I could not part from your service without making
this public acknowledgment of the gratitude I owe you. And if I use the occasion to offer to you the counsels of age and experience,
you will, I trust, receive them with the same indulgent kindness which you have so often extended to me; and will, at least,
see in them an earnest desire to perpetuate, in this favored land, the blessings of liberty and equal laws.

We have now lived almost fifty years under the Constitution framed by the sages and patriots of the Revolution. The conflicts
in which the nations of Europe were engaged during a great part of this period, the spirit in which they waged war against
each other, and our intimate commercial connections with every part of the civilized world rendered it a time of much difficulty
for the government of the United States. We have had our seasons of peace and war, with all the evils which precede or follow
a state of hostility with powerful nations. We encountered these trials with our Constitution yet in its infancy, and under
the disadvantages which a new and untried government must always feel when it is called upon to put forth its whole strength
without the lights of experience to guide it or the weight of precedents to justify its measures. But we have passed triumphantly
through all these difficulties. Our Constitution is no longer a doubtful experiment; and, at the end of nearly half a century,
we find that it has preserved unimpaired the liberties of the people, secured the rights of property, and that our country
has improved and is flourishing beyond any former example in the history of nations.

In our domestic concerns there is everything to encourage us; and if you are true to yourselves nothing can impede your march
to the highest point of national prosperity. The states which had so long been retarded in their improvement by the Indian
tribes residing in the midst of them are at length relieved from the evil; and this unhappy race--the original dwellers in
our land--are now placed in a situation where we may well hope that they will share in the blessings of civilization and be
saved from that degradation and destruction to which they were rapidly hastening while they remained in the states. And while
the safety and comfort of our own citizens have been greatly promoted by their removal, the philanthropist will rejoice that
the remnant of that ill-fated race has been at length placed beyond the reach of injury or oppression, and that the paternal
care of the general government will hereafter watch over them and protect them.

If we turn to our relations with foreign powers, we find our condition equally gratifying. Actuated by the sincere desire
to do justice to every nation and to preserve the blessings of peace, our intercourse with them has been conducted on the
part of this government in the spirit of frankness; and I take pleasure in saying that it has generally been met in a corresponding
temper. Difficulties of old standing have been surmounted by friendly discussion and the mutual desire to be just; and the
claims of our citizens, which had long been withheld, have at length been acknowledged and adjusted, and satisfactory arrangements
made for their final payment. And with a limited and, I trust, a temporary exception, our relations with every foreign power
are now of the most friendly character, our commerce continually expanding, and our flag respected in every quarter of the
world.

These cheering and grateful prospects and these multiplied favors we owe, under Providence, to the adoption of the federal
Constitution. It is no longer a question whether this great country can remain happily united and flourish under our present
form of government. Experience, the unerring test of all human undertakings, has shown the wisdom and foresight of those who
formed it; and has proved that in the union of these states there is a sure foundation for the brightest hopes of freedom
and for the happiness of the people. At every hazard and by every sacrifice, this Union must be preserved.

The necessity of watching with jealous anxiety for the preservation of the Union was earnestly pressed upon his fellow citizens
by the father of his country in his farewell address. He has there told us that "while experience shall not have demonstrated
its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who, in any quarter, may endeavor to
weaken its bonds"; and he has cautioned us, in the strongest terms, against the formation of parties on geographical discriminations,
as one of the means which might disturb our Union, and to which designing men would be likely to resort.

The lessons contained in this invaluable legacy of Washington to his countrymen should be cherished in the heart of every
citizen to the latest generation; and, perhaps, at no period of time could they be more usefully remembered than at the present
moment. For when we look upon the scenes that are passing around us and dwell upon the pages of his parting address, his paternal
counsels would seem to be not merely the offspring of wisdom and foresight but the voice of prophecy foretelling events and
warning us of the evil to come.

Forty years have passed since this imperishable document was given to his countrymen. The federal Constitution was then regarded
by him as an experiment, and he so speaks of it in his address, but an experiment upon the success of which the best hopes
of his country depended, and we all know that he was prepared to lay down his life, if necessary, to secure to it a full and
a fair trial. The trial has been made. It has succeeded beyond the proudest hopes of those who framed it. Every quarter of
this widely extended nation has felt its blessings and shared in the general prosperity produced by its adoption.

But amid this general prosperity and splendid success, the dangers of which he warned us are becoming every day more evident,
and the signs of evil are sufficiently apparent to awaken the deepest anxiety in the bosom of the patriot. We behold systematic
efforts publicly made to sow the seeds of discord between different parts of the United States and to place party divisions
directly upon geographical distinctions; to excite the South against the North and the North against the South; and to force
into the controversy the most delicate and exciting topics, topics upon which it is impossible that a large portion of the
Union can ever speak without strong emotion.

Appeals, too, are constantly made to sectional interests in order to influence the election of the chief magistrate, as if
it were desired that he should favor a particular quarter of the country instead of fulfilling the duties of his station with
impartial justice to all; and the possible dissolution of the Union has at length become an ordinary and familiar subject
of discussion. Has the warning voice of Washington been forgotten? Or have designs already been formed to sever the Union?

Let it not be supposed that I impute to all of those who have taken an active part in these unwise and unprofitable discussions
a want of patriotism or of public virtue. The honorable feeling of state pride and local attachments find a place in the bosoms
of the most enlightened and pure. But while such men are conscious of their own integrity and honesty of purpose, they ought
never to forget that the citizens of other states are their political brethren; and that, however mistaken they may be in
their views, the great body of them are equally honest and upright with themselves. Mutual suspicions and reproaches may in
time create mutual hostility, and artful and designing men will always be found who are ready to foment these fatal divisions
and to inflame the natural jealousies of different sections of the country. The history of the world is full of such examples
and especially the history of republics.

What have you to gain by division and dissension? Delude not yourselves with the belief that a breach once made may be afterward
repaired. If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are
now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword. Neither
should you deceive yourselves with the hope that the first line of separation would be the permanent one, and that nothing
but harmony and concord would be found in the new associations formed upon the dissolution of this Union. Local interests
would still be found there, and unchastened ambition. And if the recollection of common dangers in which the people of these
United States stood side by side against the common foe; the memory of victories won by their united valor; the prosperity
and happiness they have enjoyed under the present Constitution; the proud name they bear as citizens of this great republic;
if all these recollections and proofs of common interest are not strong enough to bind us together as one people, what tie
will hold united the new divisions of empire when these bonds have been broken and this Union dissevered?

The first line of separation would not last for a single generation; new fragments would be torn off; new leaders would spring
up; and this great and glorious republic would soon be broken into a multitude of petty states, without commerce, without
credit, jealous of one another, armed for mutual aggression, loaded with taxes to pay armies and leaders, seeking aid against
each other from foreign powers, insulted and trampled upon by the nations of Europe, until, harassed with conflicts and humbled
and debased in spirit, they would be ready to submit to the absolute dominion of any military adventurer and to surrender
their liberty for the sake of repose. It is impossible to look on the consequences that would inevitably follow the destruction
of this government and not feel indignant when we hear cold calculations about the value of the Union and have so constantly
before us a line of conduct so well calculated to weaken its ties.

There is too much at stake to allow pride or passion to influence your decision. Never for a moment believe that the great
body of the citizens of any state or states can deliberately intend to do wrong. They may, under the influence of temporary
excitement or misguided opinions, commit mistakes; they may be misled for a time by the suggestions of self-interest; but
in a community so enlightened and patriotic as the people of the United States, argument will soon make them sensible of their
errors, and, when convinced, they will be ready to repair them. If they have no higher or better motives to govern them, they
will at least perceive that their own interest requires them to be just to others as they hope to receive justice at their
hands.

But in order to maintain the Union unimpaired, it is absolutely necessary that the laws passed by the constituted authorities
should be faithfully executed in every part of the country, and that every good citizen should, at all times, stand ready
to put down, with the combined force of the nation, every attempt at unlawful resistance, under whatever pretext it may be
made or whatever shape it may assume. Unconstitutional or oppressive laws may no doubt be passed by Congress, either from
erroneous views or the want of due consideration. If they are within the reach of judicial authority, the remedy is easy and
peaceful; and if, from the character of the law, it is an abuse of power not within the control of the judiciary, then free
discussion and calm appeals to reason and to the justice of the people will not fail to redress the wrong. But until the law
shall be declared void by the courts or repealed by Congress, no individual or combination of individuals can be justified
in forcibly resisting its execution. It is impossible that any government can continue to exist upon any other principles.
It would cease to be a government and be unworthy of the name if it had not the power to enforce the execution of its own
laws within its own sphere of action.

It is true that cases may be imagined disclosing such a settled purpose of usurpation and oppression on the part of the government
as would justify an appeal to arms. These, however, are extreme cases, which we have no reason to apprehend in a government
where the power is in the hands of a patriotic people. And no citizen who loves his country would in any case whatever resort
to forcible resistance, unless he clearly saw that the time had come when a freeman should prefer death to submission; for
if such a struggle is once begun and the citizens of one section of the country arrayed in arms against those of another in
doubtful conflict, let the battle result as it may, there will be an end of the Union and, with it, an end to the hopes of
freedom. The victory of the injured would not secure to them the blessings of liberty; it would avenge their wrongs, but they
would themselves share in the common ruin.

But the Constitution cannot be maintained nor the Union preserved in opposition to public feeling by the mere exertion of
the coercive powers confided to the general government. The foundations must be laid in the affections of the people; in the
security it gives to life, liberty, character, and property in every quarter of the country; and in the fraternal attachment
which the citizens of the several states bear to one another as members of one political family, mutually contributing to
promote the happiness of each other. Hence the citizens of every state should studiously avoid everything calculated to wound
the sensibility or offend the just pride of the people of other states; and they should frown upon any proceedings within
their own borders likely to disturb the tranquillity of their political brethren in other portions of the Union.

In a country so extensive as the United States and with pursuits so varied, the internal regulations of the several states
must frequently differ from one another in important particulars; and this difference is unavoidably increased by the varying
principles upon which the American colonies were originally planted; principles which had taken deep root in their social
relations before the Revolution and, therefore, of necessity influencing their policy since they became free and independent
states. But each state has the unquestionable right to regulate its own internal concerns according to its own pleasure; and
while it does not interfere with the rights of the people of other states or the rights of the Union, every state must be
the sole judge of the measures proper to secure the safety of its citizens and promote their happiness; and all efforts on
the part of the people of other states to cast odium upon their institutions, and all measures calculated to disturb their
rights of property or to put in jeopardy their peace and internal tranquillity, are in direct opposition to the spirit in
which the Union was formed and must endanger its safety.

Motives of philanthropy may be assigned for this unwarrantable interference; and weak men may persuade themselves for a moment
that they are laboring in the cause of humanity and asserting the rights of the human race. But everyone, upon sober reflection,
will see that nothing but mischief can come from these improper assaults upon the feelings and rights of others. Rest assured
that the men found busy in this work of discord are not worthy of your confidence and deserve your strongest reprobation.

In the legislation of Congress, also, and in every measure of the general government, justice to every portion of the United
States should be faithfully observed. No free government can stand without virtue in the people and a lofty spirit of patriotism;
and if the sordid feelings of mere selfishness shall usurp the place which ought to be filled by public spirit, the legislation
of Congress will soon be converted into a scramble for personal and sectional advantages. Under our free institutions, the
citizens of every quarter of our country are capable of attaining a high degree of prosperity and happiness without seeking
to profit themselves at the expense of others; and every such attempt must in the end fail to succeed, for the people in every
part of the United States are too enlightened not to understand their own rights and interests and to detect and defeat every
effort to gain undue advantages over them. And when such designs are discovered, it naturally provokes resentments which cannot
always be easily allayed. Justice, full and ample justice, to every portion of the United States, should be the ruling principle
of every freeman and should guide the deliberations of every public body, whether it be state or national.

It is well known that there have always been those among us who wish to enlarge the powers of the general government; and
experience would seem to indicate that there is a tendency on the part of this government to overstep the boundaries marked
out for it by the Constitution. Its legitimate authority is abundantly sufficient for all the purposes for which it was created;
and its powers being expressly enumerated, there can be no justification for claiming anything beyond them. Every attempt
to exercise power beyond these limits should be promptly and firmly opposed. For one evil example will lead to other measures
still more mischievous; and if the principle of constructive powers, or supposed advantages, or temporary circumstances, shall
ever be permitted to justify the assumption of a power not given by the Constitution, the general government will before long
absorb all the powers of legislation, and you will have, in effect, but one consolidated government. From the extent of our
country, its diversified interests, different pursuits, and different habits, it is too obvious for argument that a single
consolidated government would be wholly inadequate to watch over and protect its interests; and every friend of our free institutions
should be always prepared to maintain unimpaired and in full vigor the rights and sovereignty of the states and to confine
the action of the general government strictly to the sphere of its appropriate duties.

There is, perhaps, no one of the powers conferred on the federal government so liable to abuse as the taxing power. The most
productive and convenient sources of revenue were necessarily given to it, that it might be able to perform the important
duties imposed upon it; and the taxes which it lays upon commerce being concealed from the real payer in the price of the
article, they do not so readily attract the attention of the people as smaller sums demanded from them directly by the tax
gatherer. But the tax imposed on goods enhances by so much the price of the commodity to the consumer; and, as many of these
duties are imposed on articles of necessity which are daily used by the great body of the people, the money raised by these
imposts is drawn from their pockets.

Congress has no right, under the Constitution, to take money from the people unless it is required to execute some one of
the specific powers entrusted to the government; and if they raise more than is necessary for such purposes, it is an abuse
of the power of taxation and unjust and oppressive. It may, indeed, happen that the revenue will sometimes exceed the amount
anticipated when the taxes were laid. When, however, this is ascertained, it is easy to reduce them; and, in such a case,
it is unquestionably the duty of the government to reduce them, for no circumstances can justify it in assuming a power not
given to it by the Constitution nor in taking away the money of the people when it is not needed for the legitimate wants
of the government.

Plain as these principles appear to be, you will yet find that there is a constant effort to induce the general government
to go beyond the limits of its taxing power and to impose unnecessary burdens upon the people. Many powerful interests are
continually at work to procure heavy duties on commerce and to swell the revenue beyond the real necessities of the public
service; and the country has already felt the injurious effects of their combined influence. They succeeded in obtaining a
tariff of duties bearing most oppressively on the agricultural and laboring classes of society and producing a revenue that
could not be usefully employed within the range of the powers conferred upon Congress; and, in order to fasten upon the people
this unjust and unequal system of taxation, extravagant schemes of internal improvement were got up in various quarters to
squander the money and to purchase support. Thus, one unconstitutional measure was intended to be upheld by another, and the
abuse of the power of taxation was to be maintained by usurping the power of expending the money in internal improvements.

You cannot have forgotten the severe and doubtful struggle through which we passed when the Executive Department of the government,
by its veto, endeavored to arrest this prodigal scheme of injustice and to bring back the legislation of Congress to the boundaries
prescribed by the Constitution. The good sense and practical judgment of the people, when the subject was brought before them,
sustained the course of the executive; and this plan of unconstitutional expenditure for the purpose of corrupt influence
is, I trust, finally overthrown.

The result of this decision has been felt in the rapid extinguishment of the public debt and the large accumulation of a surplus
in the treasury, notwithstanding the tariff was reduced and is now very far below the amount originally contemplated by its
advocates. But, rely upon it, the design to collect an extravagant revenue and to burden you with taxes beyond the economical
wants of the government is not yet abandoned. The various interests which have combined together to impose a heavy tariff
and to produce an overflowing treasury are too strong and have too much at stake to surrender the contest. The corporations
and wealthy individuals who are engaged in large manufacturing establishments desire a high tariff to increase their gains.
Designing politicians will support it to conciliate their favor and to obtain the means of profuse expenditure for the purpose
of purchasing influence in other quarters; and since the people have decided that the federal government cannot be permitted
to employ its income in internal improvements, efforts will be made to seduce and mislead the citizens of the several states
by holding out to them the deceitful prospect of benefits to be derived from a surplus revenue collected by the general government
and annually divided among the states. And if, encouraged by these fallacious hopes, the states should disregard the principles
of economy which ought to characterize every republican government and should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their
resources, they will, before long, find themselves oppressed with debts which they are unable to pay, and the temptation will
become irresistible to support high tariff in order to obtain a surplus for distribution.

Do not allow yourselves, my fellow citizens, to be misled on this subject. The federal government cannot collect a surplus
for such purposes without violating the principles of the Constitution and assuming powers which have not been granted. It
is, moreover, a system of injustice, and, if persisted in, will inevitably lead to corruption and must end in ruin. The surplus
revenue will be drawn from the pockets of the people, from the farmer, the mechanic, and the laboring classes of society;
but who will receive it when distributed among the states, where it is to be disposed of by leading state politicians who
have friends to favor and political partisans to gratify? It will certainly not be returned to those who paid it and who have
most need of it and are honestly entitled to it. There is but one safe rule, and that is to confine the general government
rigidly within the sphere of its appropriate duties. It has no power to raise a revenue or impose taxes except for the purposes
enumerated in the Constitution; and if its income is found to exceed these wants, it should be forthwith reduced, and the
burdens of the people so far lightened.

In reviewing the conflicts which have taken place between different interests in the United States and the policy pursued
since the adoption of our present form of government, we find nothing that has produced such deep-seated evil as the course
of legislation in relation to the currency. The Constitution of the United States unquestionably intended to secure to the
people a circulating medium of gold and silver. But the establishment of a national bank by Congress with the privilege of
issuing paper money receivable in the payment of the public dues, and the unfortunate course of legislation in the several
states upon the same subject, drove from general circulation the constitutional currency and substituted one of paper in its
place.

It was not easy for men engaged in the ordinary pursuits of business, whose attention had not been particularly drawn to the
subject, to foresee all the consequences of a currency exclusively of paper; and we ought not, on that account, to be surprised
at the facility with which laws were obtained to carry into effect the paper system. Honest and even enlightened men are sometimes
misled by the specious and plausible statements of the designing. But experience has now proved the mischiefs and dangers
of a paper currency, and it rests with you to determine whether the proper remedy shall be applied.

The paper system being founded on public confidence and having of itself no intrinsic value, it is liable to great and sudden
fluctuations, thereby rendering property insecure and the wages of labor unsteady and uncertain. The corporations which create
the paper money cannot be relied upon to keep the circulating medium uniform in amount. In times of prosperity, when confidence
is high, they are tempted by the prospect of gain or by the influence of those who hope to profit by it to extend their issues
of paper beyond the bounds of discretion and the reasonable demands of business. And when these issues have been pushed on
from day to day until the public confidence is at length shaken, then a reaction takes place, and they immediately withdraw
the credits they have given; suddenly curtail their issues; and produce an unexpected and ruinous contraction of the circulating
medium which is felt by the whole community.

The banks, by this means, save themselves, and the mischievous consequences of their imprudence or cupidity are visited upon
the public. Nor does the evil stop here. These ebbs and flows in the currency and these indiscreet extensions of credit naturally
engender a spirit of speculation injurious to the habits and character of the people. We have already seen its effects in
the wild spirit of speculation in the public lands and various kinds of stock which, within the last year or two, seized upon
such a multitude of our citizens and threatened to pervade all classes of society and to withdraw their attention from the
sober pursuits of honest industry. It is not by encouraging this spirit that we shall best preserve public virtue and promote
the true interests of our country.

But if your currency continues as exclusively paper as it now is, it will foster this eager desire to amass wealth without
labor; it will multiply the number of dependents on bank accommodations and bank favors; the temptation to obtain money at
any sacrifice will become stronger and stronger, and inevitably lead to corruption which will find its way into your public
councils and destroy, at no distant day, the purity of your government. Some of the evils which arise from this system of
paper press, with peculiar hardship, upon the class of society least able to bear it. A portion of this currency frequently
becomes depreciated or worthless, and all of it is easily counterfeited in such a manner as to require peculiar skill and
much experience to distinguish the counterfeit from the genuine note. These frauds are most generally perpetrated in the smaller
notes, which are used in the daily transactions of ordinary business; and the losses occasioned by them are commonly thrown
upon the laboring classes of society whose situation and pursuits put it out of their power to guard themselves from these
impositions and whose daily wages are necessary for their subsistence.

It is the duty of every government so to regulate its currency as to protect this numerous class as far as practicable from
the impositions of avarice and fraud. It is more especially the duty of the United States where the government is emphatically
the government of the people, and where this respectable portion of our citizens are so proudly distinguished from the laboring
classes of all other nations by their independent spirit, their love of liberty, their intelligence, and their high tone of
moral character. Their industry in peace is the source of our wealth, and their bravery in war has covered us with glory;
and the government of the United States will but ill discharge its duties if it leaves them a prey to such dishonest impositions.
Yet it is evident that their interests cannot be effectually protected unless silver and gold are restored to circulation.

These views alone of the paper currency are sufficient to call for immediate reform; but there is another consideration which
should still more strongly press it upon your attention.

Recent events have proved that the paper money system of this country may be used as an engine to undermine your free institutions;
and that those who desire to engross all power in the hands of the few and to govern by corruption or force are aware of its
power and prepared to employ it. Your banks now furnish your only circulating medium, and money is plenty or scarce according
to the quantity of notes issued by them. While they have capitals not greatly disproportioned to each other, they are competitors
in business, and no one of them can exercise dominion over the rest. And although, in the present state of the currency, these
banks may and do operate injuriously upon the habits of business, the pecuniary concerns, and the moral tone of society, yet,
from their number and dispersed situation, they cannot combine for the purpose of political influence; and whatever may be
the dispositions of some of them their power of mischief must necessarily be confined to a narrow space and felt only in their
immediate neighborhoods.

But when the charter of the Bank of the United States was obtained from Congress, it perfected the schemes of the paper system
and gave its advocates the position they have struggled to obtain from the commencement of the federal government down to
the present hour. The immense capital and peculiar privileges bestowed upon it enabled it to exercise despotic sway over the
other banks in every part of the country. From its superior strength it could seriously injure, if not destroy, the business
of any one of them which might incur its resentment; and it openly claimed for itself the power of regulating the currency
throughout the United States. In other words, it asserted (and it undoubtedly possessed) the power to make money plenty or
scarce, at its pleasure, at any time, and in any quarter of the Union, by controlling the issues of other banks and permitting
an expansion or compelling a general contraction of the circulating medium according to its own will.

The other banking institutions were sensible of its strength, and they soon generally became its obedient instruments, ready
at all times to execute its mandates; and with the banks necessarily went, also, that numerous class of persons in our commercial
cities who depend altogether on bank credits for their solvency and means of business; and who are, therefore, obliged for
their own safety to propitiate the favor of the money power by distinguished zeal and devotion in its service.

The result of the ill-advised legislation which established this great monopoly was to concentrate the whole money power of
the Union, with its boundless means of corruption and its numerous dependents, under the direction and command of one acknowledged
head; thus organizing this particular interest as one body and securing to it unity and concert of action throughout the United
States and enabling it to bring forward, upon any occasion, its entire and undivided strength to support or defeat any measure
of the government. In the hands of this formidable power, thus perfectly organized, was also placed unlimited dominion over
the amount of the circulating medium, giving it the power to regulate the value of property and the fruits of labor in every
quarter of the Union and to bestow prosperity or bring ruin upon any city or section of the country as might best comport
with its own interest or policy.

We are not left to conjecture how the moneyed power, thus organized and with such a weapon in its hands, would be likely to
use it. The distress and alarm which pervaded and agitated the whole country when the Bank of the United States waged war
upon the people in order to compel them to submit to its demands cannot yet be forgotten. The ruthless and unsparing temper
with which whole cities and communities were oppressed, individuals impoverished and ruined, and a scene of cheerful prosperity
suddenly changed into one of gloom and despondency ought to be indelibly impressed on the memory of the people of the United
States.

If such was its power in a time of peace, what would it not have been in a season of war with an enemy at your doors? No nation
but the freemen of the United States could have come out victorious from such a contest; yet, if you had not conquered, the
government would have passed from the hands of the many to the hands of the few; and this organized money power, from its
secret conclave, would have directed the choice of your highest officers and compelled you to make peace or war as best suited
their own wishes. The forms of your government might, for a time, have remained; but its living spirit would have departed
from it.

The distress and sufferings inflicted on the people by the Bank are some of the fruits of that system of policy which is continually
striving to enlarge the authority of the federal government beyond the limits fixed by the Constitution. The powers enumerated
in that instrument do not confer on Congress the right to establish such a corporation as the Bank of the United States; and
the evil consequences which followed may warn us of the danger of departing from the true rule of construction and of permitting
temporary circumstances or the hope of better promoting the public welfare to influence, in any degree, our decisions upon
the extent of the authority of the general government. Let us abide by the Constitution as it is written or amend it in the
constitutional mode if it is found defective.

The severe lessons of experience will, I doubt not, be sufficient to prevent Congress from again chartering such a monopoly,
even if the Constitution did not present an insuperable objection to it. But you must remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal
vigilance by the people is the price of liberty; and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves
you, therefore, to be watchful in your states as well as in the federal government. The power which the moneyed interest can
exercise, when concentrated under a single head, and with our present system of currency, was sufficiently demonstrated in
the struggle made by the Bank of the United States. Defeated in the general government, the same class of intriguers and politicians
will now resort to the states and endeavor to obtain there the same organization which they failed to perpetuate in the Union;
and with specious and deceitful plans of public advantages and state interests and state pride they will endeavor to establish,
in the different states, one moneyed institution with overgrown capital and exclusive privileges sufficient to enable it to
control the operations of the other banks.

Such an institution will be pregnant with the same evils produced by the Bank of the United States, although its sphere of
action is more confined; and in the state in which it is chartered the money power will be able to embody its whole strength
and to move together with undivided force to accomplish any object it may wish to attain. You have already had abundant evidence
of its power to inflict injury upon the agricultural, mechanical, and laboring classes of society, and over whose engagements
in trade or speculation render them dependent on bank facilities, the dominion of the state monopoly will be absolute, and
their obedience unlimited. With such a bank and a paper currency, the money power would, in a few years, govern the state
and control its measures; and if a sufficient number of states can be induced to create such establishments, the time will
soon come when it will again take the field against the United States and succeed in perfecting and perpetuating its organization
by a charter from Congress.

It is one of the serious evils of our present system of banking that it enables one class of society, and that by no means
a numerous one, by its control over the currency to act injuriously upon the interests of all the others and to exercise more
than its just proportion of influence in political affairs. The agricultural, the mechanical, and the laboring classes have
little or no share in the direction of the great moneyed corporations; and from their habits and the nature of their pursuits,
they are incapable of forming extensive combinations to act together with united force. Such concert of action may sometimes
be produced in a single city or in a small district of country by means of personal communications with each other; but they
have no regular or active correspondence with those who are engaged in similar pursuits in distant places. They have but little
patronage to give the press and exercise but a small share of influence over it; they have no crowd of dependents about them
who hope to grow rich without labor by their countenance and favor and who are, therefore, always ready to exercise their
wishes.

The planter, the farmer, the mechanic, and the laborer all know that their success depends upon their own industry and economy
and that they must not expect to become suddenly rich by the fruits of their toil. Yet these classes of society form the great
body of the people of the United States; they are the bone and sinew of the country; men who love liberty and desire nothing
but equal rights and equal laws and who, moreover, hold the great mass of our national wealth, although it is distributed
in moderate amounts among the millions of freemen who possess it. But, with overwhelming numbers and wealth on their side,
they are in constant danger of losing their fair influence in the government, and with difficulty maintain their just rights
against the incessant efforts daily made to encroach upon them.

The mischief springs from the power which the moneyed interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control;
from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges which they have succeeded in obtaining in the different states
and which are employed altogether for their benefit; and unless you become more watchful in your states and check this spirit
of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges, you will, in the end, find that the most important powers of government have
been given or bartered away, and the control over your dearest interests has passed into the hands of these corporations.

The paper money system and its natural associates, monopoly and exclusive privileges, have already struck their roots deep
in the soil; and it will require all your efforts to check its further growth and to eradicate the evil. The men who profit
by the abuses and desire to perpetuate them will continue to besiege the halls of legislation in the general government as
well as in the states and will seek, by every artifice, to mislead and deceive the public servants. It is to yourselves that
you must look for safety and the means of guarding and perpetuating your free institutions. In your hands is rightfully placed
the sovereignty of the country and to you everyone placed in authority is ultimately responsible. It is always in your power
to see that the wishes of the people are carried into faithful execution, and their will, when once made known, must sooner
or later be obeyed. And while the people remain, as I trust they ever will, uncorrupted and incorruptible and continue watchful
and jealous of their rights, the government is safe, and the cause of freedom will continue to triumph over all its enemies.

But it will require steady and persevering exertions on your part to rid yourselves of the iniquities and mischiefs of the
paper system and to check the spirit of monopoly and other abuses which have sprung up with it and of which it is the main
support. So many interests are united to resist all reform on this subject that you must not hope the conflict will be a short
one nor success easy. My humble efforts have not been spared during my administration of the government to restore the constitutional
currency of gold and silver; and something, I trust, has been done toward the accomplishment of this most desirable object.
But enough yet remains to require all your energy and perseverance. The power, however, is in your hands, and the remedy must
and will be applied if you determine upon it.

While I am thus endeavoring to press upon your attention the principles which I deem of vital importance in the domestic concerns
of the country, I ought not to pass over, without notice, the important considerations which should govern your policy toward
foreign powers. It is unquestionably our true interest to cultivate the most friendly understanding with every nation and
to avoid by every honorable means the calamities of war; and we shall best attain this object by frankness and sincerity in
our foreign intercourse, by the prompt and faithful execution of treaties, and by justice and impartiality in our conduct
to all. But no nation, however desirous of peace, can hope to escape occasional collisions with other powers; and the soundest
dictates of policy require that we should place ourselves in a condition to assert our rights if a resort to force should
ever become necessary.

Our local situation, our long line of seacoast, indented by numerous bays, with deep rivers opening into the interior, as
well as our extended and still increasing commerce, point to the navy as our natural means of defense. It will, in the end,
be found to be the cheapest and most effectual; and now is the time, in a season of peace and with an overflowing revenue,
that we can, year after year, add to its strength without increasing the burdens of the people. It is your true policy. For
your navy will not only protect your rich and flourishing commerce in distant seas, but will enable you to reach and annoy
the enemy and will give to defense its greatest efficiency by meeting danger at a distance from home.

It is impossible by any line of fortifications to guard every point from attack against a hostile force advancing from the
ocean and selecting its object; but they are indispensable to protect cities from bombardment, dockyards, and naval arsenals
from destruction; to give shelter to merchant vessels in time of war, and to single ships or weaker squadrons when pressed
by superior force. Fortifications of this description cannot be too soon completed and armed and placed in a condition of
the most perfect preparation. The abundant means we now possess cannot be applied in any manner more useful to the country;
and when this is done and our naval force sufficiently strengthened and our militia armed, we need not fear that any nation
will wantonly insult us or needlessly provoke hostilities. We shall more certainly preserve peace when it is well understood
that we are prepared for war.

In presenting to you, my fellow citizens, these parting counsels, I have brought before you the leading principles upon which
I endeavored to administer the government in the high office with which you twice honored me. Knowing that the path of freedom
is continually beset by enemies who often assume the disguise of friends, I have devoted the last hours of my public life
to warn you of the danger.

The progress of the United States under our free and happy institutions has surpassed the most sanguine hopes of the founders
of the republic. Our growth has been rapid beyond all former example--in numbers, in wealth, in knowledge, and all the useful
arts which contribute to the comforts and convenience of man; and from the earliest ages of history to the present day, there
never have been 13 million people associated together in one political body who enjoyed so much freedom and happiness as the
people of these United States. You have no longer any cause to fear danger from abroad; your strength and power are well known
throughout the civilized world, as well as the high and gallant bearing of your sons.

It is from within, among yourselves, from cupidity, from corruption, from disappointed ambition and inordinate thirst for
power, that factions will be formed and liberty endangered. It is against such designs, whatever disguise the actors may assume,
that you have especially to guard yourselves. You have the highest of human trusts committed to your care. Providence has
showered on this favored land blessings without number and has chosen you as the guardians of freedom to preserve it for the
benefit of the human race. May He who holds in His hands the destinies of nations make you worthy of the favors He has bestowed
and enable you, with pure hearts and pure hands and sleepless vigilance, to guard and defend to the end of time the great
charge He has committed to your keeping.

My own race is nearly run; advanced age and failing health warn me that before long I must pass beyond the reach of human
events and cease to feel the vicissitudes of human affairs. I thank God that my life has been spent in a land of liberty and
that He has given me a heart to love my country with the affection of a son. And, filled with gratitude for your constant
and unwavering kindness, I bid you a last and affectionate farewell.

Source: Farewell Address of Andrew Jackson to the People of the United States: and the Inaugural Address of Martin Van Buren, President
of the United States, 1837, pp. 3-16.

The Missouri Compromise, by the terms of which slavery was henceforth excluded from the territories north of latitude 36°30' (the southern boundary of Missouri), alarmed Thomas
Jefferson, as he told John Holmes in this famous letter, “like a firebell in the night.” The vividness of the image was in
keeping with the passions of the time. Despite being a slaveholder himself, Jefferson publicly disapproved of slavery. He
even more strongly disapproved of any action on the part of Congress that, in his view, exceeded its constitutional authority.
Slavery, Jefferson believed, would die a natural death if left alone; but the very life of the Union depended on maintaining
a due measure in legislative acts. In addition, the Missouri Compromise had drawn a line across the country on the basis of
a principle, not of geography; such a line, “held up,” as Jefferson put it, “to the angry passions of men,” could have no
other ultimate effect than the disastrous rending of the body politic. Holmes, a Massachusetts man, was one of the few Northern
congressmen to vote against the Tallmadge Amendment that would have excluded slavery from Missouri itself; Jefferson's prophetic
letter to him was written April 22, 1820, just a month after the passage of the Missouri Compromise.

I thank you, dear sir, for the copy you have been so kind as to send me of the letter to your constituents on the Missouri
question. It is a perfect justification to them. I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers, or pay any attention to
public affairs, confident they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am
not distant. But this momentous question, like a firebell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it
at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence.
A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions
of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. I can say, with conscious truth,
that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way.

The cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle which would not cost me a second thought, if,
in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected; and gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But as it is, we have the wolf by the ears,
and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. Of one thing
I am certain, that as the passage of slaves from one state to another would not make a slave of a single human being who would
not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater surface would make them individually happier, and proportionally facilitate
the accomplishment of their emancipation, by dividing the burden on a greater number of coadjutors. An abstinence too, from
this act of power, would remove the jealousy excited by the undertaking of Congress to regulate the condition of the different
descriptions of men composing a state. This certainly is the exclusive right of every state, which nothing in the Constitution
has taken from them and given to the general government. Could Congress, for example, say that the non-freemen of Connecticut
shall be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any other state?

I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire
self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and
that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it. If they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they
will throw away against an abstract principle more likely to be effected by union than by scission, they would pause before
they would perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves, and of treason against the hopes of the world. To yourself, as the
faithful advocate of the Union, I tender the offering of my high esteem and respect.

Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Vice President, my friends, you will understand and, I believe, agree with my wish that the form of
this inauguration be simple and its words brief.

We Americans of today, together with our allies, are passing through a period of supreme test. It is a test of our courage-of
our resolve-of our wisdom-our essential democracy.

If we meet that test-successfully and honorably-we shall perform a service of historic importance which men and women and
children will honor throughout all time.

As I stand here today, having taken the solemn oath of office in the presence of my fellow countrymen-in the presence of our
God-I know that it is America's purpose that we shall not fail.

In the days and in the years that are to come we shall work for a just and honorable peace, a durable peace, as today we work
and fight for total victory in war.

We can and we will achieve such a peace.

We shall strive for perfection. We shall not achieve it immediately-but we still shall strive. We may make mistakes-but they
must never be mistakes which result from faintness of heart or abandonment of moral principle.

I remember that my old schoolmaster, Dr. Peabody, said, in days that seemed to us then to be secure and untroubled: "Things
in life will not always run smoothly. Sometimes we will be rising toward the heights-then all will seem to reverse itself
and start downward. The great fact to remember is that the trend of civilization itself is forever upward; that a line drawn
through the middle of the peaks and the valleys of the centuries always has an upward trend."

Our Constitution of 1787 was not a perfect instrument; it is not perfect yet. But it provided a firm base upon which all manner
of men, of all races and colors and creeds, could build our solid structure of democracy.

And so today, in this year of war, 1945, we have learned lessons-at a fearful cost-and we shall profit by them.

We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations
far away. We have learned that we must live as men, not as ostriches, nor as dogs in the manger.

We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.

We have learned the simple truth, as Emerson said, that "The only way to have a friend is to be one."

We can gain no lasting peace if we approach it with suspicion and mistrust or with fear. We can gain it only if we proceed
with the understanding, the confidence, and the courage which flow from conviction.

The Almighty God has blessed our land in many ways. He has given our people stout hearts and strong arms with which to strike
mighty blows for freedom and truth. He has given to our country a faith which has become the hope of all peoples in an anguished
world.

So we pray to Him now for the vision to see our way clearly-to see the way that leads to a better life for ourselves and for
all our fellow men-to the achievement of His will to peace on earth.

President Lyndon Johnson's relations with Congress were extremely friendly during the first year or so after President John
Kennedy's death. Both Johnson and the legislators seemed to sense a widespread desire in the country to carry through on the
deceased president's program, and indeed to go beyond in significant respects what Kennedy probably could have done if he
had lived. One of the most important of such cooperative endeavours was the so-called “war on poverty,” inaugurated by Johnson in a message to Congress of March 16, 1964, that is reprinted here in part.

We are citizens of the richest and most fortunate nation in the history of the world. One hundred and eighty years ago we
were a small country struggling for survival on the margin of a hostile land. Today we have established a civilization of
freemen which spans an entire continent.

With the growth of our country has come opportunity for our people--opportunity to educate our children, to use our energies
in productive work, to increase our leisure--opportunity for almost every American to hope that through work and talent he
could create a better life for himself and his family.

The path forward has not been an easy one. But we have never lost sight of our goal--an America in which every citizen shares
all the opportunities of his society, in which every man has a chance to advance his welfare to the limit of his capacities.
We have come a long way toward this goal. We still have a long way to go.

The distance which remains is the measure of the great unfinished work of our society. To finish that work I have called for
a national war on poverty. Our objective: total victory.

There are millions of Americans--one-fifth of our people--who have not shared in the abundance which has been granted to most
of us, and on whom the gates of opportunity have been closed. What does this poverty mean to those who endure it? It means
a daily struggle to secure the necessities for even a meager existence. It means that the abundance, the comforts, the opportunities
they see all around them are beyond their grasp. Worst of all, it means hopelessness for the young.

The young man or woman who grows up without a decent education, in a broken home, in a hostile and squalid environment, in
ill health or in the face of racial injustice--that young man or woman is often trapped in a life of poverty. He does not
have the skills demanded by a complex society. He does not know how to acquire those skills. He faces a mounting sense of
despair which drains initiative and ambition and energy.

Our tax cut will create millions of new jobs--new exits from poverty. But we must also strike down all the barriers which
keep many from using those exits. The war on poverty is not a struggle simply to support people, to make them dependent on
the generosity of others. It is a struggle to give people a chance. It is an effort to allow them to develop and use their
capacities, as we have been allowed to develop and use ours, so that they can share, as others share, in the promise of this
nation.

We do this, first of all, because it is right that we should. From the establishment of public education and land-grant colleges
through agricultural extension and encouragement to industry, we have pursued the goal of a nation with full and increasing
opportunities for all its citizens. The war on poverty is a further step in that pursuit. We do it also because helping some
will increase the prosperity of all. Our fight against poverty will be an investment in the most valuable of our resources--the
skills and strength of our people. And in the future, as in the past, this investment will return its cost manyfold to our
entire economy.

If we can raise the annual earnings of 10 million among the poor by only $1,000 we will have added $14 billion a year to our
national output. In addition we can make important reductions in public-assistance payments, which now cost us $4 billion
a year, and in the large costs of fighting crime and delinquency, disease and hunger.

This is only part of the story. Our history has proved that each time we broaden the base of abundance, giving more people
the chance to produce and consume, we create new industry, higher production, increased earnings, and better income for all.
Giving new opportunity to those who have little will enrich the lives of all the rest.

Because it is right, because it is wise, and because, for the first time in our history, it is possible to conquer poverty,
I submit, for the consideration of the Congress and the country, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. The act does not merely
expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the
consequences of poverty. It can be a milestone in our 180-year search for a better life for our people.

This act provides five basic opportunities: It will give almost half a million underprivileged young Americans the opportunity
to develop skills, continue education, and find useful work; it will give every American community the opportunity to develop
a comprehensive plan to fight its own poverty--and help them to carry out their plans; it will give dedicated Americans the
opportunity to enlist as volunteers in the war against poverty; it will give many workers and farmers the opportunity to break
through particular barriers which bar their escape from poverty; it will give the entire nation the opportunity for a concerted
attack on poverty through the establishment, under my direction, of the Office of Economic Opportunity, a national headquarters
for the war against poverty.

This is how we propose to create these opportunities:

First, we will give high priority to helping young Americans who lack skills, who have not completed their education, or who
cannot complete it because they are too poor. The years of high school and college age are the most critical stage of a young
person's life. If they are not helped then, many will be condemned to a life of poverty which they, in turn, will pass on
to their children.

I therefore recommend the creation of a Job Corps, a work-training program, and a work-study program. A new national Job Corps
will build toward an enlistment of 100,000 young men. They will be drawn from those whose background, health, and education
make them least fit for useful work. Those who volunteer will enter more than 100 camps and centers around the country. Half
of these young men will work, in the first year, on special conservation projects to give them education, useful work experience,
and to enrich the natural resources of the country. Half of these young men will receive, in the first year, a blend of training,
basic education, and work experience in job-training centers.

These are not simply camps for the underprivileged. They are new educational institutions, comparable in innovation to the
land-grant colleges. Those who enter them will emerge better qualified to play a productive role in American society.

A new national work-training program operated by the Department of Labor will provide work and training for 200,000 American
men and women between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one. This will be developed through state and local governments and nonprofit
agencies. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans badly need the experience, the income, and the sense of purpose which useful
full or part-time work can bring. For them such work may mean the difference between finishing school or dropping out. Vital
community activities from hospitals and playgrounds to libraries and settlement houses are suffering because there are not
enough people to staff them. We are simply bringing these needs together.

A new national work-study program operated by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare will provide federal funds
for part-time jobs for 140,000 young Americans who do not go to college because they cannot afford it. There is no more senseless
waste than the waste of the brainpower and skill of those who are kept from college by economic circumstance. Under this program
they will, in a great American tradition, be able to work their way through school. They and the country will be richer for
it.

Second, through a new community-action program we intend to strike at poverty at its source--in the streets of our cities
and on the farms of our countryside among the very young and the impoverished old. This program asks men and women throughout
the country to prepare long-range plans for the attack on poverty in their own local communities.

These are not plans prepared in Washington and imposed upon hundreds of different situations. They are based on the fact that
local citizens best understand their own problems and know best how to deal with those problems. These plans will be local
plans striking at the many unfilled needs which underlie poverty in each community, not just one or two. Their components
and emphasis will differ as needs differ. These plans will be local plans calling upon all the resources available to the
community--federal and state, local and private, human and material.

And when these plans are approved by the Office of Economic Opportunity, the federal government will finance up to 90 percent
of the additional cost for the first two years.

The most enduring strength of our nation is the huge reservoir of talent, initiative, and leadership which exists at every
level of our society. Through the community-action program we call upon this, our greatest strength, to overcome our greatest
weakness.

Third, I ask for the authority to recruit and train skilled volunteers for the war against poverty. Thousands of Americans
have volunteered to serve the needs of other lands. Thousands more want the chance to serve the needs of their own land. They
should have that chance.

Among older people who have retired, as well as among the young, among women as well as men, there are many Americans who
are ready to enlist in our war against poverty. They have skills and dedication. They are badly needed. If the state requests
them, if the community needs and will use them, we will recruit and train them and give them the chance to serve.

Fourth, we intend to create new opportunities for certain hard-hit groups to break out of the pattern of poverty. Through
a new program of loans and guarantees we can provide incentives to those who will employ the unemployed. Through programs
of work and retraining for unemployed fathers and mothers we can help them support their families in dignity while preparing
themselves for new work. Through funds to purchase needed land, organize cooperatives, and create new and adequate family
farms we can help those whose life on the land has been a struggle without hope.

Fifth, I do not intend that the war against poverty become a series of uncoordinated and unrelated efforts--that it perish
for lack of leadership and direction. Therefore this bill creates, in the Executive Office of the President, a new Office
of Economic Opportunity. Its director will be my personal chief of staff for the war against poverty. I intend to appoint
Sargent Shriver to this post. He will be directly responsible for these new programs. He will work with and through existing
agencies of the government....

What you are being asked to consider is not a simple or an easy program. But poverty is not a simple or an easy enemy. It
cannot be driven from the land by a single attack on a single front. Were this so we would have conquered poverty long ago.
Nor can it be conquered by government alone.

For decades American labor and American business, private institutions and private individuals have been engaged in strengthening
our economy and offering new opportunity to those in need. We need their help, their support, and their full participation.

Through this program we offer new incentives and new opportunities for cooperation, so that all the energy of our nation,
not merely the efforts of government, can be brought to bear on our common enemy. Today, for the first time in our history,
we have the power to strike away the barriers to full participation in our society. Having the power, we have the duty.

The Congress is charged by the Constitution to "provide...for the general welfare of the United States." Our present abundance
is a measure of its success in fulfilling that duty. Now Congress is being asked to extend that welfare to all our people.

The President of the United States is President of all the people in every section of the country. But this office also holds
a special responsibility to the distressed and disinherited, the hungry and the hopeless of this abundant nation....

On similar occasions in the past we have often been called upon to wage war against foreign enemies which threatened our freedom.
Today we are asked to declare war on a domestic enemy which threatens the strength of our nation and the welfare of our people.
If we now move forward against this enemy--if we can bring to the challenges of peace the same determination and strength
which has brought us victory in war--then this day and this Congress will have won a secure and honorable place in the history
of the nation and the enduring gratitude of generations of Americans yet to come.

Source: 88th Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Document No. 86.

George W. Bush: Immigration Reform

The United States has long been referred to as a “melting pot” and a “nation of immigrants.” Despite this, immigration has been a contentious
issue in the country's history, from the clamour of concerned citizens such as famed inventor Samuel F.B. Morse sounding the alarm about the dangers of Irish Catholic immigrants in the 1830s, '40s, and '50s to Henry Cabot Lodge, a U.S. senator who warned against unrestricted immigration in 1896. The topic of immigration and the need for reform resurfaces
repeatedly in the United States. Although many laws have been passed, little has been resolved, and in the early 21st century
the topic of immigration continued to be an issue. In 2006 the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that upwards of 12 million foreign
nationals were living illegally in the United States. Of these, it was estimated, more than three-fourths were born in South
or Central America, with more than half of this group coming from Mexico. Many rallies—some drawing as many as half a million people—were held around the country in 2006. Demonstrators demanded
recognition for the positive contributions made by illegal immigrants to the United States and urged that they be given a
way to obtain U.S. citizenship and the rights and protections that accompany it; they opposed immigration-policy legislation
that would not support these goals. Many others, however, objected to the relaxing of immigration policies and claimed that
illegal immigrants were causing more harm than good to the U.S. economy. In the midst of this debate, Pres. George W. Bush delivered a national speech (reprinted below) addressing these issues and outlining his proposal to arrive at an immigration
policy to satisfy both sides.

Good evening. I've asked for a few minutes of your time to discuss a matter of national importance—the reform of America's
immigration system.

The issue of immigration stirs intense emotions, and in recent weeks, Americans have seen those emotions on display. On the
streets of major cities, crowds have rallied in support of those in our country illegally. At our southern border, others
have organized to stop illegal immigrants from coming in. Across the country, Americans are trying to reconcile these contrasting
images. And in Washington, the debate over immigration reform has reached a time of decision. Tonight, I will make it clear
where I stand, and where I want to lead our country on this vital issue.

We must begin by recognizing the problems with our immigration system. For decades, the United States has not been in complete
control of its borders. As a result, many who want to work in our economy have been able to sneak across our border, and millions
have stayed.

Once here, illegal immigrants live in the shadows of our society. Many use forged documents to get jobs, and that makes it
difficult for employers to verify that the workers they hire are legal. Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools
and hospitals, it strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our communities. These are real problems. Yet we must
remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their
faith, and lead responsible lives. They are a part of American life, but they are beyond the reach and protection of American
law.

We're a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We're also a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition,
which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals. America can be a lawful society and
a welcoming society at the same time. We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we will deliver a system
that is secure, orderly, and fair. So I support comprehensive immigration reform that will accomplish five clear objectives.

First, the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. It is also an urgent
requirement of our national security. Our objective is straightforward: The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration,
and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists.

I was a governor of a state that has a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. So I know how difficult it is to enforce the border,
and how important it is. Since I became President, we've increased funding for border security by 66 percent, and expanded
the Border Patrol from about 9,000 to 12,000 agents. The men and women of our Border Patrol are doing a fine job in difficult
circumstances, and over the past five years, they have apprehended and sent home about six million people entering America
illegally.

Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I'm calling
on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we'll
increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we'll have more
than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency.

At the same time, we're launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will
construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We'll employ motion
sensors, infrared cameras, and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings. America has the best technology in the
world, and we will ensure that the Border Patrol has the technology they need to do their job and secure our border.

Training thousands of new Border Patrol agents and bringing the most advanced technology to the border will take time. Yet
the need to secure our border is urgent. So I'm announcing several immediate steps to strengthen border enforcement during
this period of transition:

One way to help during this transition is to use the National Guard. So, in coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard
members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border
Patrol by operating surveillance systems, analyzing intelligence, installing fences and vehicle barriers, building patrol
roads, and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities—that duty will be done
by the Border Patrol. This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year. After that, the number
of Guard forces will be reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online. It is important for Americans
to know that we have enough Guard forces to win the war on terror, to respond to natural disasters, and to help secure our
border.

The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend. We will continue
to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border, to confront common problems like drug trafficking and
crime, and to reduce illegal immigration.

Another way to help during this period of transition is through state and local law enforcement in our border communities.
So we'll increase federal funding for state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions.
We will give state and local authorities the specialized training they need to help federal officers apprehend and detain
illegal immigrants. State and local law enforcement officials are an important part of our border security and they need to
be a part of our strategy to secure our borders.

The steps I've outlined will improve our ability to catch people entering our country illegally. At the same time, we must
ensure that every illegal immigrant we catch crossing our southern border is returned home. More than 85 percent of the illegal
immigrants we catch crossing the southern border are Mexicans, and most are sent back home within 24 hours. But when we catch
illegal immigrants from other country [sic] it is not as easy to send them home. For many years, the government did not have
enough space in our detention facilities to hold them while the legal process unfolded. So most were released back into our
society and asked to return for a court date. When the date arrived, the vast majority did not show up. This practice, called
“catch and release,” is unacceptable, and we will end it.

We're taking several important steps to meet this goal. We've expanded the number of beds in our detention facilities, and
we will continue to add more. We've expedited the legal process to cut the average deportation time. And we're making it clear
to foreign governments that they must accept back their citizens who violate our immigration laws. As a result of these actions,
we've ended “catch and release” for illegal immigrants from some countries. And I will ask Congress for additional funding
and legal authority, so we can end “catch and release” at the southern border once and for all. When people know that they'll
be caught and sent home if they enter our country illegally, they will be less likely to try to sneak in.

Second, to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program. The reality is that there are many people on the
other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of
desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our
border that walls and patrols alone will not stop. To secure the border effectively, we must reduce the numbers of people
trying to sneak across.

Therefore, I support a temporary worker program that would create a legal path for foreign workers to enter our country in
an orderly way, for a limited period of time. This program would match willing foreign workers with willing American employers
for jobs Americans are not doing. Every worker who applies for the program would be required to pass criminal background checks.
And temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay.

A temporary worker program would meet the needs of our economy, and it would give honest immigrants a way to provide for their
families while respecting the law. A temporary worker program would reduce the appeal of human smugglers, and make it less
likely that people would risk their lives to cross the border. It would ease the financial burden on state and local governments,
by replacing illegal workers with lawful taxpayers. And above all, a temporary worker program would add to our security by
making certain we know who is in our country and why they are here.

Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this
country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees because of the widespread problem
of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work
eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should
use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce
the law, and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work
in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.

Fourth, we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are here already. They should not be given an automatic
path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully, and it would
invite further waves of illegal immigration.

Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant, and that any proposal short of this amounts
to amnesty. I disagree. It is neither wise, nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United
States, and send them across the border. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship
for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes there are differences between
an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently, and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family,
and an otherwise clean record.

I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for
breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn English, and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these
conditions should be able to apply for citizenship, but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line
behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I've just described is not amnesty, it is a way for those
who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.

Fifth, we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one nation out of many peoples. The
success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans.
Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability
to speak and write the English language. English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of America. English allows newcomers
to go from picking crops to opening a grocery, from cleaning offices to running offices, from a life of low-paying jobs to
a diploma, a career, and a home of their own. When immigrants assimilate and advance in our society, they realize their dreams,
they renew our spirit, and they add to the unity of America.

Tonight, I want to speak directly to members of the House and the Senate: An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive,
because all elements of this problem must be addressed together, or none of them will be solved at all. The House has passed
an immigration bill. The Senate should act by the end of this month so we can work out the differences between the two bills,
and Congress can pass a comprehensive bill for me to sign into law.

America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone. Feelings run deep on this issue, and
as we work it out, all of us need to keep some things in mind. We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger,
or playing on anyone's fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain. We must always remember that real
lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their
citizenship papers say.

I know many of you listening tonight have a parent or a grandparent who came here from another country with dreams of a better
life. You know what freedom meant to them, and you know that America is a more hopeful country because of their hard work
and sacrifice. As President, I've had the opportunity to meet people of many backgrounds, and hear what America means to them.
On a visit to Bethesda Naval Hospital, Laura and I met a wounded Marine named Guadalupe Denogean. Master Gunnery Sergeant
Denogean came to the United States from Mexico when he was a boy. He spent his summers picking crops with his family, and
then he volunteered for the United States Marine Corps as soon as he was able. During the liberation of Iraq, Master Gunnery
Sergeant Denogean was seriously injured. And when asked if he had any requests, he made two: a promotion for the corporal
who helped rescue him, and the chance to become an American citizen. And when this brave Marine raised his right hand, and
swore an oath to become a citizen of the country he had defended for more than 26 years, I was honored to stand at his side.

We will always be proud to welcome people like Guadalupe Denogean as fellow Americans. Our new immigrants are just what they've
always been—people willing to risk everything for the dream of freedom. And America remains what she has always been: the
great hope on the horizon, an open door to the future, a blessed and promised land. We honor the heritage of all who come
here, no matter where they come from, because we trust in our country's genius for making us all Americans—one nation under
God.

Without solicitation on my part, I have been chosen by the free and voluntary suffrages of my countrymen to the most honorable
and most responsible office on earth. I am deeply impressed with gratitude for the confidence reposed in me. Honored with
this distinguished consideration at an earlier period of life than any of my predecessors, I can not disguise the diffidence
with which I am about to enter on the discharge of my official duties.

If the more aged and experienced men who have filled the office of President of the United States even in the infancy of the
Republic distrusted their ability to discharge the duties of that exalted station, what ought not to be the apprehensions
of one so much younger and less endowed now that our domain extends from ocean to ocean, that our people have so greatly increased
in numbers, and at a time when so great diversity of opinion prevails in regard to the principles and policy which should
characterize the administration of our Government? Well may the boldest fear and the wisest tremble when incurring responsibilities
on which may depend our country's peace and prosperity, and in some degree the hopes and happiness of the whole human family.

In assuming responsibilities so vast I fervently invoke the aid of that Almighty Ruler of the Universe in whose hands are
the destinies of nations and of men to guard this Heaven-favored land against the mischiefs which without His guidance might
arise from an unwise public policy. With a firm reliance upon the wisdom of Omnipotence to sustain and direct me in the path
of duty which I am appointed to pursue, I stand in the presence of this assembled multitude of my countrymen to take upon
myself the solemn obligation "to the best of my ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

A concise enumeration of the principles which will guide me in the administrative policy of the Government is not only in
accordance with the examples set me by all my predecessors, but is eminently befitting the occasion.

The Constitution itself, plainly written as it is, the safeguard of our federative compact, the offspring of concession and
compromise, binding together in the bonds of peace and union this great and increasing family of free and independent States,
will be the chart by which I shall be directed.

It will be my first care to administer the Government in the true spirit of that instrument, and to assume no powers not expressly
granted or clearly implied in its terms. The Government of the United States is one of delegated and limited powers, and it
is by a strict adherence to the clearly granted powers and by abstaining from the exercise of doubtful or unauthorized implied
powers that we have the only sure guaranty against the recurrence of those unfortunate collisions between the Federal and
State authorities which have occasionally so much disturbed the harmony of our system and even threatened the perpetuity of
our glorious Union.

"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution
nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government
of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty. While the General Government
should abstain from the exercise of authority not clearly delegated to it, the States should be equally careful that in the
maintenance of their rights they do not overstep the limits of powers reserved to them. One of the most distinguished of my
predecessors attached deserved importance to "the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent
administration for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwark against antirepublican tendencies," and to the "preservation
of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad."

To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it
wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts
its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and
physical powers. It is a common protector of each and all the States; of every man who lives upon our soil, whether of native
or foreign birth; of every religious sect, in their worship of the Almighty according to the dictates of their own conscience;
of every shade of opinion, and the most free inquiry; of every art, trade, and occupation consistent with the laws of the
States. And we rejoice in the general happiness, prosperity, and advancement of our country, which have been the offspring
of freedom, and not of power.

This most admirable and wisest system of well-regulated self-government among men ever devised by human minds has been tested
by its successful operation for more than half a century, and if preserved from the usurpations of the Federal Government
on the one hand and the exercise by the States of powers not reserved to them on the other, will, I fervently hope and believe,
endure for ages to come and dispense the blessings of civil and religious liberty to distant generations. To effect objects
so dear to every patriot I shall devote myself with anxious solicitude. It will be my desire to guard against that most fruitful
source of danger to the harmonious action of our system which consists in substituting the mere discretion and caprice of
the Executive or of majorities in the legislative department of the Government for powers which have been withheld from the
Federal Government by the Constitution. By the theory of our Government majorities rule, but this right is not an arbitrary
or unlimited one. It is a right to be exercised in subordination to the Constitution and in conformity to it. One great object
of the Constitution was to restrain majorities from oppressing minorities or encroaching upon their just rights. Minorities
have a right to appeal to the Constitution as a shield against such oppression.

That the blessings of liberty which our Constitution secures may be enjoyed alike by minorities and majorities, the Executive
has been wisely invested with a qualified veto upon the acts of the Legislature. It is a negative power, and is conservative
in its character. It arrests for the time hasty, inconsiderate, or unconstitutional legislation, invites reconsideration,
and transfers questions at issue between the legislative and executive departments to the tribunal of the people. Like all
other powers, it is subject to be abused. When judiciously and properly exercised, the Constitution itself may be saved from
infraction and the rights of all preserved and protected.

The inestimable value of our Federal Union is felt and acknowledged by all. By this system of united and confederated States
our people are permitted collectively and individually to seek their own happiness in their own way, and the consequences
have been most auspicious. Since the Union was formed the number of the States has increased from thirteen to twenty-eight;
two of these have taken their position as members of the Confederacy within the last week. Our population has increased from
three to twenty millions. New communities and States are seeking protection under its aegis, and multitudes from the Old World
are flocking to our shores to participate in its blessings. Beneath its benign sway peace and prosperity prevail. Freed from
the burdens and miseries of war, our trade and intercourse have extended throughout the world. Mind, no longer tasked in devising
means to accomplish or resist schemes of ambition, usurpation, or conquest, is devoting itself to man's true interests in
developing his faculties and powers and the capacity of nature to minister to his enjoyments. Genius is free to announce its
inventions and discoveries, and the hand is free to accomplish whatever the head conceives not incompatible with the rights
of a fellow-being. All distinctions of birth or of rank have been abolished. All citizens, whether native or adopted, are
placed upon terms of precise equality. All are entitled to equal rights and equal protection. No union exists between church
and state, and perfect freedom of opinion is guaranteed to all sects and creeds.

These are some of the blessings secured to our happy land by our Federal Union. To perpetuate them it is our sacred duty to
preserve it. Who shall assign limits to the achievements of free minds and free hands under the protection of this glorious
Union? No treason to mankind since the organization of society would be equal in atrocity to that of him who would lift his
hand to destroy it. He would overthrow the noblest structure of human wisdom, which protects himself and his fellow-man. He
would stop the progress of free government and involve his country either in anarchy or despotism. He would extinguish the
fire of liberty, which warms and animates the hearts of happy millions and invites all the nations of the earth to imitate
our example. If he say that error and wrong are committed in the administration of the Government, let him remember that nothing
human can be perfect, and that under no other system of government revealed by Heaven or devised by man has reason been allowed
so free and broad a scope to combat error. Has the sword of despots proved to be a safer or surer instrument of reform in
government than enlightened reason? Does he expect to find among the ruins of this Union a happier abode for our swarming
millions than they now have under it? Every lover of his country must shudder at the thought of the possibility of its dissolution,
and will be ready to adopt the patriotic sentiment, "Our Federal Union-it must be preserved." To preserve it the compromises
which alone enabled our fathers to form a common constitution for the government and protection of so many States and distinct
communities, of such diversified habits, interests, and domestic institutions, must be sacredly and religiously observed.
Any attempt to disturb or destroy these compromises, being terms of the compact of union, can lead to none other than the
most ruinous and disastrous consequences.

It is a source of deep regret that in some sections of our country misguided persons have occasionally indulged in schemes
and agitations whose object is the destruction of domestic institutions existing in other sections-institutions which existed
at the adoption of the Constitution and were recognized and protected by it. All must see that if it were possible for them
to be successful in attaining their object the dissolution of the Union and the consequent destruction of our happy form of
government must speedily follow.

I am happy to believe that at every period of our existence as a nation there has existed, and continues to exist, among the
great mass of our people a devotion to the Union of the States which will shield and protect it against the moral treason
of any who would seriously contemplate its destruction. To secure a continuance of that devotion the compromises of the Constitution
must not only be preserved, but sectional jealousies and heartburnings must be discountenanced, and all should remember that
they are members of the same political family, having a common destiny. To increase the attachment of our people to the Union,
our laws should be just. Any policy which shall tend to favor monopolies or the peculiar interests of sections or classes
must operate to the prejudice of the interest of their fellow-citizens, and should be avoided. If the compromises of the Constitution
be preserved, if sectional jealousies and heartburnings be discountenanced, if our laws be just and the Government be practically
administered strictly within the limits of power prescribed to it, we may discard all apprehensions for the safety of the
Union.

With these views of the nature, character, and objects of the Government and the value of the Union, I shall steadily oppose
the creation of those institutions and systems which in their nature tend to pervert it from its legitimate purposes and make
it the instrument of sections, classes, and individuals. We need no national banks or other extraneous institutions planted
around the Government to control or strengthen it in opposition to the will of its authors. Experience has taught us how unnecessary
they are as auxiliaries of the public authorities-how impotent for good and how powerful for mischief.

Ours was intended to be a plain and frugal government, and I shall regard it to be my duty to recommend to Congress and, as
far as the Executive is concerned, to enforce by all the means within my power the strictest economy in the expenditure of
the public money which may be compatible with the public interests.

A national debt has become almost an institution of European monarchies. It is viewed in some of them as an essential prop
to existing governments. Melancholy is the condition of that people whose government can be sustained only by a system which
periodically transfers large amounts from the labor of the many to the coffers of the few. Such a system is incompatible with
the ends for which our republican Government was instituted. Under a wise policy the debts contracted in our Revolution and
during the War of 1812 have been happily extinguished. By a judicious application of the revenues not required for other necessary
purposes, it is not doubted that the debt which has grown out of the circumstances of the last few years may be speedily paid
off.

I congratulate my fellow-citizens on the entire restoration of the credit of the General Government of the Union and that
of many of the States. Happy would it be for the indebted States if they were freed from their liabilities, many of which
were incautiously contracted. Although the Government of the Union is neither in a legal nor a moral sense bound for the debts
of the States, and it would be a violation of our compact of union to assume them, yet we can not but feel a deep interest
in seeing all the States meet their public liabilities and pay off their just debts at the earliest practicable period. That
they will do so as soon as it can be done without imposing too heavy burdens on their citizens there is no reason to doubt.
The sound moral and honorable feeling of the people of the indebted States can not be questioned, and we are happy to perceive
a settled disposition on their part, as their ability returns after a season of unexampled pecuniary embarrassment, to pay
off all just demands and to acquiesce in any reasonable measures to accomplish that object.

One of the difficulties which we have had to encounter in the practical administration of the Government consists in the adjustment
of our revenue laws and the levy of the taxes necessary for the support of Government. In the general proposition that no more money shall be collected than the necessities
of an economical administration shall require all parties seem to acquiesce. Nor does there seem to be any material difference
of opinion as to the absence of right in the Government to tax one section of country, or one class of citizens, or one occupation,
for the mere profit of another. "Justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to foster one branch of industry to
the detriment of another, or to cherish the interests of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common country."
I have heretofore declared to my fellow-citizens that "in my judgment it is the duty of the Government to extend, as far as
it may be practicable to do so, by its revenue laws and all other means within its power, fair and just protection to all
of the great interests of the whole Union, embracing agriculture, manufactures, the mechanic arts, commerce, and navigation."
I have also declared my opinion to be "in favor of a tariff for revenue," and that "in adjusting the details of such a tariff
I have sanctioned such moderate discriminating duties as would produce the amount of revenue needed and at the same time afford
reasonable incidental protection to our home industry," and that I was "opposed to a tariff for protection merely, and not
for revenue."

The power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises" was an indispensable one to be conferred on the Federal
Government, which without it would possess no means of providing for its own support. In executing this power by levying a
tariff of duties for the support of Government, the raising of revenue should be the object and protection the incident. To
reverse this principle and make protection the object and revenue the incident would be to inflict manifest injustice upon
all other than the protected interests. In levying duties for revenue it is doubtless proper to make such discriminations
within the revenue principle as will afford incidental protection to our home interests. Within the revenue limit there is
a discretion to discriminate; beyond that limit the rightful exercise of the power is not conceded. The incidental protection
afforded to our home interests by discriminations within the revenue range it is believed will be ample. In making discriminations
all our home interests should as far as practicable be equally protected. The largest portion of our people are agriculturists.
Others are employed in manufactures, commerce, navigation, and the mechanic arts. They are all engaged in their respective
pursuits and their joint labors constitute the national or home industry. To tax one branch of this home industry for the
benefit of another would be unjust. No one of these interests can rightfully claim an advantage over the others, or to be
enriched by impoverishing the others. All are equally entitled to the fostering care and protection of the Government. In
exercising a sound discretion in levying discriminating duties within the limit prescribed, care should be taken that it be
done in a manner not to benefit the wealthy few at the expense of the toiling millions by taxing lowest the luxuries of life,
or articles of superior quality and high price, which can only be consumed by the wealthy, and highest the necessaries of
life, or articles of coarse quality and low price, which the poor and great mass of our people must consume. The burdens of
government should as far as practicable be distributed justly and equally among all classes of our population. These general
views, long entertained on this subject, I have deemed it proper to reiterate. It is a subject upon which conflicting interests
of sections and occupations are supposed to exist, and a spirit of mutual concession and compromise in adjusting its details
should be cherished by every part of our widespread country as the only means of preserving harmony and a cheerful acquiescence
of all in the operation of our revenue laws. Our patriotic citizens in every part of the Union will readily submit to the
payment of such taxes as shall be needed for the support of their Government, whether in peace or in war, if they are so levied
as to distribute the burdens as equally as possible among them.

The Republic of Texas has made known her desire to come into our Union, to form a part of our Confederacy and enjoy with us the blessings of liberty
secured and guaranteed by our Constitution. Texas was once a part of our country-was unwisely ceded away to a foreign power-is
now independent, and possesses an undoubted right to dispose of a part or the whole of her territory and to merge her sovereignty
as a separate and independent state in ours. I congratulate my country that by an act of the late Congress of the United States
the assent of this Government has been given to the reunion, and it only remains for the two countries to agree upon the terms
to consummate an object so important to both.

I regard the question of annexation as belonging exclusively to the United States and Texas. They are independent powers competent
to contract, and foreign nations have no right to interfere with them or to take exceptions to their reunion. Foreign powers
do not seem to appreciate the true character of our Government. Our Union is a confederation of independent States, whose
policy is peace with each other and all the world. To enlarge its limits is to extend the dominions of peace over additional
territories and increasing millions. The world has nothing to fear from military ambition in our Government. While the Chief
Magistrate and the popular branch of Congress are elected for short terms by the suffrages of those millions who must in their
own persons bear all the burdens and miseries of war, our Government can not be otherwise than pacific. Foreign powers should
therefore look on the annexation of Texas to the United States not as the conquest of a nation seeking to extend her dominions
by arms and violence, but as the peaceful acquisition of a territory once her own, by adding another member to our confederation,
with the consent of that member, thereby diminishing the chances of war and opening to them new and ever-increasing markets
for their products.

To Texas the reunion is important, because the strong protecting arm of our Government would be extended over her, and the
vast resources of her fertile soil and genial climate would be speedily developed, while the safety of New Orleans and of
our whole southwestern frontier against hostile aggression, as well as the interests of the whole Union, would be promoted
by it.

In the earlier stages of our national existence the opinion prevailed with some that our system of confederated States could
not operate successfully over an extended territory, and serious objections have at different times been made to the enlargement
of our boundaries. These objections were earnestly urged when we acquired Louisiana. Experience has shown that they were not
well founded. The title of numerous Indian tribes to vast tracts of country has been extinguished; new States have been admitted
into the Union; new Territories have been created and our jurisdiction and laws extended over them. As our population has
expanded, the Union has been cemented and strengthened. As our boundaries have been enlarged and our agricultural population
has been spread over a large surface, our federative system has acquired additional strength and security. It may well be
doubted whether it would not be in greater danger of overthrow if our present population were confined to the comparatively
narrow limits of the original thirteen States than it is now that they are sparsely settled over a more expanded territory.
It is confidently believed that our system may be safely extended to the utmost bounds of our territorial limits, and that
as it shall be extended the bonds of our Union, so far from being weakened, will become stronger.

None can fail to see the danger to our safety and future peace if Texas remains an independent state or becomes an ally or
dependency of some foreign nation more powerful than herself. Is there one among our citizens who would not prefer perpetual
peace with Texas to occasional wars, which so often occur between bordering independent nations? Is there one who would not
prefer free intercourse with her to high duties on all our products and manufactures which enter her ports or cross her frontiers?
Is there one who would not prefer an unrestricted communication with her citizens to the frontier obstructions which must
occur if she remains out of the Union? Whatever is good or evil in the local institutions of Texas will remain her own whether
annexed to the United States or not. None of the present States will be responsible for them any more than they are for the
local institutions of each other. They have confederated together for certain specified objects. Upon the same principle that
they would refuse to form a perpetual union with Texas because of her local institutions our forefathers would have been prevented
from forming our present Union. Perceiving no valid objection to the measure and many reasons for its adoption vitally affecting
the peace, the safety, and the prosperity of both countries, I shall on the broad principle which formed the basis and produced
the adoption of our Constitution, and not in any narrow spirit of sectional policy, endeavor by all constitutional, honorable,
and appropriate means to consummate the expressed will of the people and Government of the United States by the reannexation
of Texas to our Union at the earliest practicable period.

Nor will it become in a less degree my duty to assert and maintain by all constitutional means the right of the United States
to that portion of our territory which lies beyond the Rocky Mountains. Our title to the country of the Oregon is "clear and
unquestionable," and already are our people preparing to perfect that title by occupying it with their wives and children.
But eighty years ago our population was confined on the west by the ridge of the Alleghanies. Within that period-within the
lifetime, I might say, of some of my hearers-our people, increasing to many millions, have filled the eastern valley of the
Mississippi, adventurously ascended the Missouri to its headsprings, and are already engaged in establishing the blessings
of self-government in valleys of which the rivers flow to the Pacific. The world beholds the peaceful triumphs of the industry
of our emigrants. To us belongs the duty of protecting them adequately wherever they may be upon our soil. The jurisdiction
of our laws and the benefits of our republican institutions should be extended over them in the distant regions which they
have selected for their homes. The increasing facilities of intercourse will easily bring the States, of which the formation
in that part of our territory can not be long delayed, within the sphere of our federative Union. In the meantime every obligation
imposed by treaty or conventional stipulations should be sacredly respected.

In the management of our foreign relations it will be my aim to observe a careful respect for the rights of other nations,
while our own will be the subject of constant watchfulness. Equal and exact justice should characterize all our intercourse
with foreign countries. All alliances having a tendency to jeopard the welfare and honor of our country or sacrifice any one
of the national interests will be studiously avoided, and yet no opportunity will be lost to cultivate a favorable understanding
with foreign governments by which our navigation and commerce may be extended and the ample products of our fertile soil,
as well as the manufactures of our skillful artisans, find a ready market and remunerating prices in foreign countries.

In taking "care that the laws be faithfully executed," a strict performance of duty will be exacted from all public officers.
From those officers, especially, who are charged with the collection and disbursement of the public revenue will prompt and
rigid accountability be required. Any culpable failure or delay on their part to account for the moneys intrusted to them
at the times and in the manner required by law will in every instance terminate the official connection of such defaulting
officer with the Government.

Although in our country the Chief Magistrate must almost of necessity be chosen by a party and stand pledged to its principles
and measures, yet in his official action he should not be the President of a part only, but of the whole people of the United
States. While he executes the laws with an impartial hand, shrinks from no proper responsibility, and faithfully carries out
in the executive department of the Government the principles and policy of those who have chosen him, he should not be unmindful
that our fellow-citizens who have differed with him in opinion are entitled to the full and free exercise of their opinions
and judgments, and that the rights of all are entitled to respect and regard.

Confidently relying upon the aid and assistance of the coordinate departments of the Government in conducting our public affairs,
I enter upon the discharge of the high duties which have been assigned me by the people, again humbly supplicating that Divine
Being who has watched over and protected our beloved country from its infancy to the present hour to continue His gracious
benedictions upon us, that we may continue to be a prosperous and happy people.

The second half of Jimmy Carter's presidency was a time of troubles for him, for his administration, and for the country.
Inflation and the energy crisis persisted despite all efforts to deal with them, and the situation in Iran looked as if it
would get worse and worse--which indeed it did. On July 15, 1979, Carter addressed the nation on the subject of energy for
the fifth time. He spoke at length of his plans to solve the problem. But, before discussing the energy problem, he discoursed
to the American people on another problem, a deeper one, he felt, and one that required a greater national effort to solve.
He referred to a “crisis of confidence”; several days later he talked of “a national malaise.” Reprinted here is a portion
of the July 15th speech, in which he stated some ideas that will probably be remembered longer than many of his other presidential
acts and words.

I know, of course, being President, that government actions and legislation can be very important. That's why I've worked
hard to put my campaign promises into law--and I have to admit, with just mixed success. But after listening to the American
people I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can't fix what's wrong with America. So, I want to
speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or inflation. I want to talk to you right now about
a fundamental threat to American democracy.

I do not mean our political and civil liberties. They will endure. And I do not refer to the outward strength of America,
a nation that is at peace tonight everywhere in the world, with unmatched economic power and military might.

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing
doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our Nation.

The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.

The confidence that we have always had as a people is not simply some romantic dream or a proverb in a dusty book that we
read just on the Fourth of July. It is the idea which founded our Nation and has guided our development as a people. Confidence
in the future has supported everything else--public institutions and private enterprise, our own families, and the very Constitution
of the United States. Confidence has defined our course and has served as a link between generations. We've always believed
in something called progress. We've always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own.

Our people are losing that faith, not only in government itself but in the ability as citizens to serve as the ultimate rulers
and shapers of our democracy. As a people we know our past and we are proud of it. Our progress has been part of the living
history of America, even the world. We always believed that we were part of a great movement of humanity itself called democracy,
involved in the search for freedom and that belief has always strengthened us in our purpose. But just as we are losing our
confidence in the future, we are also beginning to close the door on our past.

In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now
tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns.
But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that
piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.

The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all around us. For the first time in the history of our country a majority
of our people believe that the next 5 years will be worse than the past 5 years. Two-thirds of our people do not even vote.
The productivity of American workers is actually dropping, and the willingness of Americans to save for the future has fallen
below that of all other people in the Western world.

As you know, there is a growing disrespect for government and for churches and for schools, the news media, and other institutions.
This is not a message of happiness or reassurance, but it is the truth and it is a warning.

These changes did not happen overnight. They've come upon us gradually over the last generation, years that were filled with
shocks and tragedy.

We were sure that ours was a nation of the ballot, not the bullet, until the murders of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and
Martin Luther King, Jr. We were taught that our armies were always invincible and our causes were always just, only to suffer
the agony of Vietnam. We respected the Presidency as a place of honor until the shock of Watergate.

We remember when the phrase "sound as a dollar" was an expression of absolute dependability, until 10 years of inflation began
to shrink our dollar and our savings. We believed that our Nation's resources were limitless until 1973 when we had to face
a growing dependence on foreign oil.

These wounds are still very deep. They have never been healed.

Looking for a way out of this crisis, our people have turned to the Federal Government and found it isolated from the mainstream
of our Nation's life. Washington, D.C., has become an island. The gap between our citizens and our Government has never been
so wide. The people are looking for honest answers, not easy answers; clear leadership, not false claims and evasiveness and
politics as usual.

What you see often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action.
You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests.

You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You
often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan
without support and without friends.

Often you see paralysis and stagnation and drift. You don't like it, and neither do I. What can we do?

First of all, we must face the truth, and then we can change our course. We simply must have faith in each other, faith in
our ability to govern ourselves, and faith in the future of this Nation. Restoring that faith and that confidence to America
is now the most important task we face. It is a true challenge of this generation of Americans.

I appear before you this day to take the solemn oath "that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In entering upon this great office I must humbly invoke the God of our fathers for wisdom and firmness to execute its high
and responsible duties in such a manner as to restore harmony and ancient friendship among the people of the several States
and to preserve our free institutions throughout many generations. Convinced that I owe my election to the inherent love for
the Constitution and the Union which still animates the hearts of the American people, let me earnestly ask their powerful
support in sustaining all just measures calculated to perpetuate these, the richest political blessings which Heaven has ever
bestowed upon any nation. Having determined not to become a candidate for reelection, I shall have no motive to influence
my conduct in administering the Government except the desire ably and faithfully to serve my country and to live in grateful
memory of my countrymen.

We have recently passed through a Presidential contest in which the passions of our fellow-citizens were excited to the highest
degree by questions of deep and vital importance; but when the people proclaimed their will the tempest at once subsided and
all was calm.

The voice of the majority, speaking in the manner prescribed by the Constitution, was heard, and instant submission followed.
Our own country could alone have exhibited so grand and striking a spectacle of the capacity of man for self-government.

What a happy conception, then, was it for Congress to apply this simple rule, that the will of the majority shall govern,
to the settlement of the question of domestic slavery in the Territories. Congress is neither "to legislate slavery into any Territory or State nor to exclude it therefrom, but
to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only
to the Constitution of the United States."

As a natural consequence, Congress has also prescribed that when the Territory of Kansas shall be admitted as a State it "shall
be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission."

A difference of opinion has arisen in regard to the point of time when the people of a Territory shall decide this question
for themselves.

This is, happily, a matter of but little practical importance. Besides, it is a judicial question, which legitimately belongs
to the Supreme Court of the United States, before whom it is now pending, and will, it is understood, be speedily and finally
settled. To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be, though it has
ever been my individual opinion that under the Nebraska-Kansas act the appropriate period will be when the number of actual
residents in the Territory shall justify the formation of a constitution with a view to its admission as a State into the
Union. But be this as it may, it is the imperative and indispensable duty of the Government of the United States to secure
to every resident inhabitant the free and independent expression of his opinion by his vote. This sacred right of each individual
must be preserved. That being accomplished, nothing can be fairer than to leave the people of a Territory free from all foreign
interference to decide their own destiny for themselves, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.

The whole Territorial question being thus settled upon the principle of popular sovereignty-a principle as ancient as free
government itself-everything of a practical nature has been decided. No other question remains for adjustment, because all
agree that under the Constitution slavery in the States is beyond the reach of any human power except that of the respective
States themselves wherein it exists. May we not, then, hope that the long agitation on this subject is approaching its end,
and that the geographical parties to which it has given birth, so much dreaded by the Father of his Country, will speedily
become extinct? Most happy will it be for the country when the public mind shall be diverted from this question to others
of more pressing and practical importance. Throughout the whole progress of this agitation, which has scarcely known any intermission
for more than twenty years, whilst it has been productive of no positive good to any human being it has been the prolific
source of great evils to the master, to the slave, and to the whole country. It has alienated and estranged the people of
the sister States from each other, and has even seriously endangered the very existence of the Union. Nor has the danger yet
entirely ceased. Under our system there is a remedy for all mere political evils in the sound sense and sober judgment of
the people. Time is a great corrective. Political subjects which but a few years ago excited and exasperated the public mind
have passed away and are now nearly forgotten. But this question of domestic slavery is of far graver importance than any
mere political question, because should the agitation continue it may eventually endanger the personal safety of a large portion
of our countrymen where the institution exists. In that event no form of government, however admirable in itself and however
productive of material benefits, can compensate for the loss of peace and domestic security around the family altar. Let every
Union-loving man, therefore, exert his best influence to suppress this agitation, which since the recent legislation of Congress
is without any legitimate object.

It is an evil omen of the times that men have undertaken to calculate the mere material value of the Union. Reasoned estimates
have been presented of the pecuniary profits and local advantages which would result to different States and sections from
its dissolution and of the comparative injuries which such an event would inflict on other States and sections. Even descending
to this low and narrow view of the mighty question, all such calculations are at fault. The bare reference to a single consideration
will be conclusive on this point. We at present enjoy a free trade throughout our extensive and expanding country such as
the world has never witnessed. This trade is conducted on railroads and canals, on noble rivers and arms of the sea, which
bind together the North and the South, the East and the West, of our Confederacy. Annihilate this trade, arrest its free progress
by the geographical lines of jealous and hostile States, and you destroy the prosperity and onward march of the whole and
every part and involve all in one common ruin. But such considerations, important as they are in themselves, sink into insignificance
when we reflect on the terrific evils which would result from disunion to every portion of the Confederacy-to the North, not
more than to the South, to the East not more than to the West. These I shall not attempt to portray, because I feel an humble
confidence that the kind Providence which inspired our fathers with wisdom to frame the most perfect form of government and
union ever devised by man will not suffer it to perish until it shall have been peacefully instrumental by its example in
the extension of civil and religious liberty throughout the world.

Next in importance to the maintenance of the Constitution and the Union is the duty of preserving the Government free from
the taint or even the suspicion of corruption. Public virtue is the vital spirit of republics, and history proves that when this has decayed and the love of money has
usurped its place, although the forms of free government may remain for a season, the substance has departed forever.

Our present financial condition is without a parallel in history. No nation has ever before been embarrassed from too large
a surplus in its treasury. This almost necessarily gives birth to extravagant legislation. It produces wild schemes of expenditure
and begets a race of speculators and jobbers, whose ingenuity is exerted in contriving and promoting expedients to obtain
public money. The purity of official agents, whether rightfully or wrongfully, is suspected, and the character of the government
suffers in the estimation of the people. This is in itself a very great evil.

The natural mode of relief from this embarrassment is to appropriate the surplus in the Treasury to great national objects
for which a clear warrant can be found in the Constitution. Among these I might mention the extinguishment of the public debt,
a reasonable increase of the Navy, which is at present inadequate to the protection of our vast tonnage afloat, now greater
than that of any other nation, as well as to the defense of our extended seacoast.

It is beyond all question the true principle that no more revenue ought to be collected from the people than the amount necessary
to defray the expenses of a wise, economical, and efficient administration of the Government. To reach this point it was necessary
to resort to a modification of the tariff, and this has, I trust, been accomplished in such a manner as to do as little injury
as may have been practicable to our domestic manufactures, especially those necessary for the defense of the country. Any
discrimination against a particular branch for the purpose of benefiting favored corporations, individuals, or interests would
have been unjust to the rest of the community and inconsistent with that spirit of fairness and equality which ought to govern
in the adjustment of a revenue tariff.

But the squandering of the public money sinks into comparative insignificance as a temptation to corruption when compared
with the squandering of the public lands.

No nation in the tide of time has ever been blessed with so rich and noble an inheritance as we enjoy in the public lands.
In administering this important trust, whilst it may be wise to grant portions of them for the improvement of the remainder,
yet we should never forget that it is our cardinal policy to reserve these lands, as much as may be, for actual settlers,
and this at moderate prices. We shall thus not only best promote the prosperity of the new States and Territories, by furnishing
them a hardy and independent race of honest and industrious citizens, but shall secure homes for our children and our children's
children, as well as for those exiles from foreign shores who may seek in this country to improve their condition and to enjoy
the blessings of civil and religious liberty. Such emigrants have done much to promote the growth and prosperity of the country.
They have proved faithful both in peace and in war. After becoming citizens they are entitled, under the Constitution and
laws, to be placed on a perfect equality with native-born citizens, and in this character they should ever be kindly recognized.

The Federal Constitution is a grant from the States to Congress of certain specific powers, and the question whether this
grant should be liberally or strictly construed has more or less divided political parties from the beginning. Without entering
into the argument, I desire to state at the commencement of my Administration that long experience and observation have convinced
me that a strict construction of the powers of the Government is the only true, as well as the only safe, theory of the Constitution.
Whenever in our past history doubtful powers have been exercised by Congress, these have never failed to produce injurious
and unhappy consequences. Many such instances might be adduced if this were the proper occasion. Neither is it necessary for
the public service to strain the language of the Constitution, because all the great and useful powers required for a successful
administration of the Government, both in peace and in war, have been granted, either in express terms or by the plainest
implication.

Whilst deeply convinced of these truths, I yet consider it clear that under the war-making power Congress may appropriate
money toward the construction of a military road when this is absolutely necessary for the defense of any State or Territory
of the Union against foreign invasion. Under the Constitution Congress has power "to declare war," "to raise and support armies,"
"to provide and maintain a navy," and to call forth the militia to "repel invasions." Thus endowed, in an ample manner, with
the war-making power, the corresponding duty is required that "the United States shall protect each of them [the States] against
invasion." Now, how is it possible to afford this protection to California and our Pacific possessions except by means of
a military road through the Territories of the United States, over which men and munitions of war may be speedily transported
from the Atlantic States to meet and to repel the invader? In the event of a war with a naval power much stronger than our
own we should then have no other available access to the Pacific Coast, because such a power would instantly close the route
across the isthmus of Central America. It is impossible to conceive that whilst the Constitution has expressly required Congress
to defend all the States it should yet deny to them, by any fair construction, the only possible means by which one of these
States can be defended. Besides, the Government, ever since its origin, has been in the constant practice of constructing
military roads. It might also be wise to consider whether the love for the Union which now animates our fellow-citizens on
the Pacific Coast may not be impaired by our neglect or refusal to provide for them, in their remote and isolated condition,
the only means by which the power of the States on this side of the Rocky Mountains can reach them in sufficient time to "protect"
them "against invasion." I forbear for the present from expressing an opinion as to the wisest and most economical mode in
which the Government can lend its aid in accomplishing this great and necessary work. I believe that many of the difficulties
in the way, which now appear formidable, will in a great degree vanish as soon as the nearest and best route shall have been
satisfactorily ascertained.

It may be proper that on this occasion I should make some brief remarks in regard to our rights and duties as a member of
the great family of nations. In our intercourse with them there are some plain principles, approved by our own experience,
from which we should never depart. We ought to cultivate peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations, and this not merely
as the best means of promoting our own material interests, but in a spirit of Christian benevolence toward our fellow-men,
wherever their lot may be cast. Our diplomacy should be direct and frank, neither seeking to obtain more nor accepting less
than is our due. We ought to cherish a sacred regard for the independence of all nations, and never attempt to interfere in
the domestic concerns of any unless this shall be imperatively required by the great law of self-preservation. To avoid entangling
alliances has been a maxim of our policy ever since the days of Washington, and its wisdom's no one will attempt to dispute.
In short, we ought to do justice in a kindly spirit to all nations and require justice from them in return.

It is our glory that whilst other nations have extended their dominions by the sword we have never acquired any territory
except by fair purchase or, as in the case of Texas, by the voluntary determination of a brave, kindred, and independent people
to blend their destinies with our own. Even our acquisitions from Mexico form no exception. Unwilling to take advantage of
the fortune of war against a sister republic, we purchased these possessions under the treaty of peace for a sum which was
considered at the time a fair equivalent. Our past history forbids that we shall in the future acquire territory unless this
be sanctioned by the laws of justice and honor. Acting on this principle, no nation will have a right to interfere or to complain
if in the progress of events we shall still further extend our possessions. Hitherto in all our acquisitions the people, under
the protection of the American flag, have enjoyed civil and religious liberty, as well as equal and just laws, and have been
contented, prosperous, and happy. Their trade with the rest of the world has rapidly increased, and thus every commercial
nation has shared largely in their successful progress.

I shall now proceed to take the oath prescribed by the Constitution, whilst humbly invoking the blessing of Divine Providence
on this great people.

Many of the "pet banks" in which federal funds had been deposited defaulted during the Panic of 1837. As a consequence of
the bank failures and the inability to raise public funds in an economy beset by a servere depression, it appeared that the
current expenses of the federal government could not be covered. To deal with this situation, Martin Van Buren, the newly
elected President, called a special session of Congress that assembled in Washington on September 4, 1837. To solve the fiscal
problems of the government, Van Buren proposed a further extension of the hard-money policy and backed an independent treasury.
The proposal, which in effect meant that the government would handle its own funds and require payment in legal tender, was
the final step in the divorce of bank and state that Jackson had initiated. The business community, which had been hoping
for a revival of the National Bank, smoldered in silence. A portion of Van Buren's message is reprinted below.

Two nations, the most commercial in the world, enjoying but recently the highest degree of apparent prosperity and maintaining
with each other the closest relations, are suddenly, in a time of profound peace and without any great national disaster,
arrested in their career and plunged into a state of embarrassment and distress. In both countries we have witnessed the same
redundancy of paper money and other facilities of credit; the same spirit of speculation; the same partial successes; the
same difficulties and reverses; and, at length, nearly the same overwhelming catastrophe. The most material difference between
the results in the two countries has only been that with us there has also occurred an extensive derangement in the fiscal
affairs of the federal and state governments, occasioned by the suspension of specie payments by the banks.

The history of these causes and effects in Great Britain and the United States is substantially the history of the revulsion
in all other commercial countries.

The present and visible effects of these circumstances on the operations of the government and on the industry of the people
point out the objects which call for your immediate attention.

They are: to regulate by law the safekeeping, transfer, and disbursement of the public moneys; to designate the funds to be
received and paid by the government; to enable the Treasury to meet promptly every demand upon it; to prescribe the terms
of indulgence and the mode of settlement to be adopted, as well in collecting from individuals the revenue that has accrued
as in withdrawing it from former depositories; and to devise and adopt such further measures, within the constitutional competency
of Congress, as will be best calculated to revive the enterprise and to promote the prosperity of the country. . . .

The plan proposed will be adequate to all our fiscal operations during the remainder of the year. Should it be adopted, the
Treasury, aided by the ample resources of the country, will be able to discharge punctually every pecuniary obligation. For
the future all that is needed will be that caution and forbearance in appropriations which the diminution of the revenue requires
and which the complete accomplishment or great forwardness of many expensive national undertakings renders equally consistent
with prudence and patriotic liberality.

The preceding suggestions and recommendations are submitted in the belief that their adoption by Congress will enable the
Executive Department to conduct our fiscal concerns with success so far as their management has been committed to it. While
the objects and the means proposed to attain them are within its constitutional powers and appropriate duties, they will,
at the same time, it is hoped, by their necessary operation, afford essential aid in the transaction of individual concerns,
and thus yield relief to the people at large in a form adapted to the nature of our government. Those who look to the action
of this government for specific aid to the citizen to relieve embarrassments arising from losses by revulsions in commerce
and credit lose sight of the ends for which it was created and the powers with which it is clothed.

It was established to give security to us all in our lawful and honorable pursuits, under the lasting safeguard of republican
institutions. It was not intended to confer special favors on individuals or on any classes of them, to create systems of
agriculture, manufactures, or trade, or to engage in them either separately or in connection with individual citizens or organized
associations. If its operations were to be directed for the benefit of any one class, equivalent favors must in justice be
extended to the rest; and the attempt to bestow such favors with an equal hand, or even to select those who should most deserve
them, would never be successful.

All communities are apt to look to government for too much. Even in our own country, where its powers and duties are so strictly
limited, we are prone to do so, especially at periods of sudden embarrassment and distress. But this ought not to be. The
framers of our excellent Constitution and the people who approved it with calm and sagacious deliberation acted at the time
on a sounder principle. They wisely judged that the less government interferes with private pursuits the better for the general
prosperity. It is not its legitimate object to make men rich or to repair by direct grants of money or legislation in favor
of particular pursuits, losses not incurred in the public service. This would be substantially to use the property of some
for the benefit of others. But its real duty -- that duty the performance of which makes a good government the most precious
of human blessings -- is to enact and enforce a system of general laws commensurate with, but not exceeding, the objects of
its establishment, and to leave every citizen and every interest to reap under its benign protection the rewards of virtue,
industry, and prudence.

I cannot doubt that on this as on all similar occasions the federal government will find its agency most conducive to the
security and happiness of the people when limited to the exercise of its conceded powers. In never assuming, even for a well-meant
object, such powers as were not designed to be conferred upon it, we shall in reality do most for the general welfare. To
avoid every unnecessary interference with the pursuits of the citizen will result in more benefit than to adopt measures which
could only assist limited interests, and are eagerly, but perhaps naturally, sought for under the pressure of temporary circumstances.
If, therefore, I refrain from suggesting to Congress any specific plan for regulating the exchanges of the country, relieving
mercantile embarrassments, or interfering with the ordinary operations of foreign or domestic commerce, it is from a conviction
that such measures are not within the constitutional province of the general government, and that their adoption would not
promote the real and permanent welfare of those they might be designed to aid.

The difficulties and distresses of the times, though unquestionably great, are limited in their extent, and cannot be regarded
as affecting the permanent prosperity of the nation. Arising in a great degree from the transactions of foreign and domestic
commerce, it is upon them that they have chiefly fallen. The great agricultural interest has in many parts of the country
suffered comparatively little, and, as if Providence intended to display the munificence of its goodness at the moment of
our greatest need, and in direct contrast to the evils occasioned by the waywardness of man, we have been blessed throughout
our extended territory with a season of general health and of uncommon fruitfulness.

The proceeds of our great staples will soon furnish the means of liquidating debts at home and abroad, and contribute equally
to the revival of commercial activity and the restoration of commercial credit. The banks, established avowedly for its support,
deriving their profits from it, and resting under obligations to it which cannot be overlooked, will feel at once the necessity
and justice of uniting their energies with those of the mercantile interest.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 3, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 324-346.

In August 1990 Iraqi forces invaded neighbouring Kuwait in an attempt to gain control of its oil reserves, prompting U.S.
President George Bush to direct a massive American military buildup in Saudi Arabia to protect against any further Iraqi aggression.
The Bush administration officially dubbed the defense of Saudi Arabia “Operation Desert Shield,” but the size and scope of
the American presence (more than 500,000 American troops had arrived in Saudi Arabia by January 1991) made it clear that a
powerful offensive capability existed for U.S. forces. Throughout the military buildup, American officials negotiated with
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in an effort to persuade him to withdraw from Kuwait. These efforts failed, as did a United
Nations' effort to mediate an Iraqi withdrawal. When the United Nations Security Council deadline of January 15, 1991, passed
without an Iraqi withdrawal, American and allied forces launched a massive six-week aerial bombardment that decimated Iraqi
supplies, troops, and fortifications in Kuwait and southern Iraq. Excerpts of Bush's speech announcing the opening of the
air campaign, known as “Operation Desert Storm,” are presented here.

Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak.
Ground forces are not engaged.

This conflict started August 2d when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small and helpless neighbor. Kuwait--a member of the Arab
League and a member of the United Nations--was crushed; its people, brutalized. Five months ago, Saddam Hussein started this
cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight, the battle has been joined. . . .

As I report to you, air attacks are underway against military targets in Iraq. We are determined to knock out Saddam Hussein's
nuclear bomb potential. We will also destroy his chemical weapons facilities. Much of Saddam's artillery and tanks will be
destroyed. Our operations are designed to best protect the lives of all the coalition forces by targeting Saddam's vast military
arsenal. Initial reports from General Schwarzkopf are that our operations are proceeding according to plan.

Our objectives are clear: Saddam Hussein's forces will leave Kuwait. The legitimate government of Kuwait will be restored
to its rightful place, and Kuwait will once again be free. Iraq will eventually comply with all relevant United Nations resolutions,
and then, when peace is restored, it is our hope that Iraq will live as a peaceful and cooperative member of the family of
nations, thus enhancing the security and stability of the Gulf.

Some may ask: Why act now? Why not wait? The answer is clear: The world could wait no longer. Sanctions, though having some
effect, showed no signs of accomplishing their objective. Sanctions were tried for well over 5 months, and we and our allies
concluded that sanctions alone would not force Saddam from Kuwait.

While the world waited, Saddam Hussein systematically raped, pillaged, and plundered a tiny nation, no threat to his own.
He subjected the people of Kuwait to unspeakable atrocities--and among those maimed and murdered, innocent children.

While the world waited, Saddam sought to add to the chemical weapons arsenal he now possesses, an infinitely more dangerous
weapon of mass destruction--a nuclear weapon. And while the world waited, while the world talked peace and withdrawal, Saddam
Hussein dug in and moved massive forces into Kuwait.

While the world waited, while Saddam stalled, more damage was being done to the fragile economies of the Third World, emerging
democracies of Eastern Europe, to the entire world, including to our own economy.

The United States, together with the United Nations, exhausted every means at our disposal to bring this crisis to a peaceful
end. However, Saddam clearly felt that by stalling and threatening and defying the United Nations, he could weaken the forces
arrayed against him.

While the world waited, Saddam Hussein met every overture of peace with open contempt. While the world prayed for peace, Saddam
prepared for war.

I had hoped that when the United States Congress, in historic debate, took its resolute action, Saddam would realize he could
not prevail and would move out of Kuwait in accord with the United Nations resolutions. He did not do that. Instead, he remained
intransigent, certain that time was on his side.

Saddam was warned over and over again to comply with the will of the United Nations: Leave Kuwait, or be driven out. Saddam
has arrogantly rejected all warnings. Instead, he tried to make this a dispute between Iraq and the United States of America.

Well, he failed. Tonight, 28 nations--countries from 5 continents, Europe and Asia, Africa, and the Arab League--have forces
in the Gulf area standing shoulder to shoulder against Saddam Hussein. These countries had hoped the use of force could be
avoided. Regrettably, we now believe that only force will make him leave.

Prior to ordering our forces into battle, I instructed our military commanders to take every necessary step to prevail as
quickly as possible, and with the greatest degree of protection possible for American and allied service men and women. I've
told the American people before that this will not be another Vietnam, and I repeat this here tonight. Our troops will have
the best possible support in the entire world, and they will not be asked to fight with one hand tied behind their back. I'm
hopeful that this fighting will not go on for long and that casualties will be held to an absolute minimum.

This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war.
We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order--a world where the rule
of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful--and we will be--we have a real
chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise
and vision of the U.N.'s founders.

We have no argument with the people of Iraq. Indeed, for the innocents caught in this conflict, I pray for their safety. Our
goal is not the conquest of Iraq. It is the liberation of Kuwait. It is my hope that somehow the Iraqi people can, even now,
convince their dictator that he must lay down his arms, leave Kuwait, and let Iraq itself rejoin the family of peace-loving
nations.

Thomas Paine wrote many years ago: “These are the times that try men's souls.” Those well-known words are so very true today.
But even as planes of the multinational forces attack Iraq, I prefer to think of peace, not war. I am convinced not only that
we will prevail but that out of the horror of combat will come the recognition that no nation can stand against a world united,
no nation will be permitted to brutally assault its neighbor.

No President can easily commit our sons and daughters to war. They are the Nation's finest. Ours is an all-volunteer force,
magnificently trained, highly motivated. The troops know why they're there. . . .

And let me say to everyone listening or watching tonight: When the troops we've sent in finish their work, I am determined
to bring them home as soon as possible.

Tonight, as our forces fight, they and their families are in our prayers. May God bless each and every one of them, and the
coalition forces at our side in the Gulf, and may He continue to bless our nation, the United States of America.

Source: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, January 16, 1991.

Called from a retirement which I had supposed was to continue for the residue of my life to fill the chief executive office
of this great and free nation, I appear before you, fellow-citizens, to take the oaths which the Constitution prescribes as
a necessary qualification for the performance of its duties; and in obedience to a custom coeval with our Government and what
I believe to be your expectations I proceed to present to you a summary of the principles which will govern me in the discharge
of the duties which I shall be called upon to perform.

It was the remark of a Roman consul in an early period of that celebrated Republic that a most striking contrast was observable
in the conduct of candidates for offices of power and trust before and after obtaining them, they seldom carrying out in the
latter case the pledges and promises made in the former. However much the world may have improved in many respects in the
lapse of upward of two thousand years since the remark was made by the virtuous and indignant Roman, I fear that a strict
examination of the annals of some of the modern elective governments would develop similar instances of violated confidence.

Although the fiat of the people has gone forth proclaiming me the Chief Magistrate of this glorious Union, nothing upon their
part remaining to be done, it may be thought that a motive may exist to keep up the delusion under which they may be supposed
to have acted in relation to my principles and opinions; and perhaps there may be some in this assembly who have come here
either prepared to condemn those I shall now deliver, or, approving them, to doubt the sincerity with which they are now uttered.
But the lapse of a few months will confirm or dispel their fears. The outline of principles to govern and measures to be adopted
by an Administration not yet begun will soon be exchanged for immutable history, and I shall stand either exonerated by my
countrymen or classed with the mass of those who promised that they might deceive and flattered with the intention to betray.
However strong may be my present purpose to realize the expectations of a magnanimous and confiding people, I too well understand
the dangerous temptations to which I shall be exposed from the magnitude of the power which it has been the pleasure of the
people to commit to my hands not to place my chief confidence upon the aid of that Almighty Power which has hitherto protected
me and enabled me to bring to favorable issues other important but still greatly inferior trusts heretofore confided to me
by my country.

The broad foundation upon which our Constitution rests being the people-a breath of theirs having made, as a breath can unmake,
change, or modify it-it can be assigned to none of the great divisions of government but to that of democracy. If such is
its theory, those who are called upon to administer it must recognize as its leading principle the duty of shaping their measures
so as to produce the greatest good to the greatest number. But with these broad admissions, if we would compare the sovereignty
acknowledged to exist in the mass of our people with the power claimed by other sovereignties, even by those which have been
considered most purely democratic, we shall find a most essential difference. All others lay claim to power limited only by
their own will. The majority of our citizens, on the contrary, possess a sovereignty with an amount of power precisely equal
to that which has been granted to them by the parties to the national compact, and nothing beyond. We admit of no government
by divine right, believing that so far as power is concerned the Beneficent Creator has made no distinction amongst men; that
all are upon an equality, and that the only legitimate right to govern is an express grant of power from the governed. The
Constitution of the United States is the instrument containing this grant of power to the several departments composing the
Government. On an examination of that instrument it will be found to contain declarations of power granted and of power withheld.
The latter is also susceptible of division into power which the majority had the right to grant, but which they do not think
proper to intrust to their agents, and that which they could not have granted, not being possessed by themselves. In other
words, there are certain rights possessed by each individual American citizen which in his compact with the others he has
never surrendered. Some of them, indeed, he is unable to surrender, being, in the language of our system, unalienable. The
boasted privilege of a Roman citizen was to him a shield only against a petty provincial ruler, whilst the proud democrat
of Athens would console himself under a sentence of death for a supposed violation of the national faith-which no one understood
and which at times was the subject of the mockery of all-or the banishment from his home, his family, and his country with
or without an alleged cause, that it was the act not of a single tyrant or hated aristocracy, but of his assembled countrymen.
Far different is the power of our sovereignty. It can interfere with no one's faith, prescribe forms of worship for no one's
observance, inflict no punishment but after well-ascertained guilt, the result of investigation under rules prescribed by
the Constitution itself. These precious privileges, and those scarcely less important of giving expression to his thoughts
and opinions, either by writing or speaking, unrestrained but by the liability for injury to others, and that of a full participation
in all the advantages which flow from the Government, the acknowledged property of all, the American citizen derives from
no charter granted by his fellow-man. He claims them because he is himself a man, fashioned by the same Almighty hand as the
rest of his species and entitled to a full share of the blessings with which He has endowed them. Notwithstanding the limited
sovereignty possessed by the people of the United States and the restricted grant of power to the Government which they have
adopted, enough has been given to accomplish all the objects for which it was created. It has been found powerful in war,
and hitherto justice has been administered, and intimate union effected, domestic tranquillity preserved, and personal liberty
secured to the citizen. As was to be expected, however, from the defect of language and the necessarily sententious manner
in which the Constitution is written, disputes have arisen as to the amount of power which it has actually granted or was
intended to grant.

This is more particularly the case in relation to that part of the instrument which treats of the legislative branch, and
not only as regards the exercise of powers claimed under a general clause giving that body the authority to pass all laws
necessary to carry into effect the specified powers, but in relation to the latter also. It is, however, consolatory to reflect
that most of the instances of alleged departure from the letter or spirit of the Constitution have ultimately received the
sanction of a majority of the people. And the fact that many of our statesmen most distinguished for talent and patriotism
have been at one time or other of their political career on both sides of each of the most warmly disputed questions forces
upon us the inference that the errors, if errors there were, are attributable to the intrinsic difficulty in many instances
of ascertaining the intentions of the framers of the Constitution rather than the influence of any sinister or unpatriotic
motive. But the great danger to our institutions does not appear to me to be in a usurpation by the Government of power not
granted by the people, but by the accumulation in one of the departments of that which was assigned to others. Limited as
are the powers which have been granted, still enough have been granted to constitute a despotism if concentrated in one of
the departments. This danger is greatly heightened, as it has been always observable that men are less jealous of encroachments
of one department upon another than upon their own reserved rights. When the Constitution of the United States first came
from the hands of the Convention which formed it, many of the sternest republicans of the day were alarmed at the extent of
the power which had been granted to the Federal Government, and more particularly of that portion which had been assigned
to the executive branch. There were in it features which appeared not to be in harmony with their ideas of a simple representative
democracy or republic, and knowing the tendency of power to increase itself, particularly when exercised by a single individual,
predictions were made that at no very remote period the Government would terminate in virtual monarchy. It would not become
me to say that the fears of these patriots have been already realized; but as I sincerely believe that the tendency of measures
and of men's opinions for some years past has been in that direction, it is, I conceive, strictly proper that I should take
this occasion to repeat the assurances I have heretofore given of my determination to arrest the progress of that tendency
if it really exists and restore the Government to its pristine health and vigor, as far as this can be effected by any legitimate
exercise of the power placed in my hands.

I proceed to state in as summary a manner as I can my opinion of the sources of the evils which have been so extensively complained
of and the correctives which may be applied. Some of the former are unquestionably to be found in the defects of the Constitution;
others, in my judgment, are attributable to a misconstruction of some of its provisions. Of the former is the eligibility
of the same individual to a second term of the Presidency. The sagacious mind of Mr. Jefferson early saw and lamented this
error, and attempts have been made, hitherto without success, to apply the amendatory power of the States to its correction.
As, however, one mode of correction is in the power of every President, and consequently in mine, it would be useless, and
perhaps invidious, to enumerate the evils of which, in the opinion of many of our fellow-citizens, this error of the sages
who framed the Constitution may have been the source and the bitter fruits which we are still to gather from it if it continues
to disfigure our system. It may be observed, however, as a general remark, that republics can commit no greater error than
to adopt or continue any feature in their systems of government which may be calculated to create or increase the lover of
power in the bosoms of those to whom necessity obliges them to commit the management of their affairs; and surely nothing
is more likely to produce such a state of mind than the long continuance of an office of high trust. Nothing can be more corrupting,
nothing more destructive of all those noble feelings which belong to the character of a devoted republican patriot. When this
corrupting passion once takes possession of the human mind, like the love of gold it becomes insatiable. It is the never-dying
worm in his bosom, grows with his growth and strengthens with the declining years of its victim. If this is true, it is the
part of wisdom for a republic to limit the service of that officer at least to whom she has intrusted the management of her
foreign relations, the execution of her laws, and the command of her armies and navies to a period so short as to prevent
his forgetting that he is the accountable agent, not the principal; the servant, not the master. Until an amendment of the
Constitution can be effected public opinion may secure the desired object. I give my aid to it by renewing the pledge heretofore
given that under no circumstances will I consent to serve a second term.

But if there is danger to public liberty from the acknowledged defects of the Constitution in the want of limit to the continuance
of the Executive power in the same hands, there is, I apprehend, not much less from a misconstruction of that instrument as
it regards the powers actually given. I can not conceive that by a fair construction any or either of its provisions would
be found to constitute the President a part of the legislative power. It can not be claimed from the power to recommend, since,
although enjoined as a duty upon him, it is a privilege which he holds in common with every other citizen; and although there
may be something more of confidence in the propriety of the measures recommended in the one case than in the other, in the
obligations of ultimate decision there can be no difference. In the language of the Constitution, "all the legislative powers"
which it grants "are vested in the Congress of the United States." It would be a solecism in language to say that any portion
of these is not included in the whole.

It may be said, indeed, that the Constitution has given to the Executive the power to annul the acts of the legislative body
by refusing to them his assent. So a similar power has necessarily resulted from that instrument to the judiciary, and yet
the judiciary forms no part of the Legislature. There is, it is true, this difference between these grants of power: The Executive
can put his negative upon the acts of the Legislature for other cause than that of want of conformity to the Constitution,
whilst the judiciary can only declare void those which violate that instrument. But the decision of the judiciary is final
in such a case, whereas in every instance where the veto of the Executive is applied it may be overcome by a vote of two-thirds
of both Houses of Congress. The negative upon the acts of the legislative by the executive authority, and that in the hands
of one individual, would seem to be an incongruity in our system. Like some others of a similar character, however, it appears
to be highly expedient, and if used only with the forbearance and in the spirit which was intended by its authors it may be
productive of great good and be found one of the best safeguards to the Union. At the period of the formation of the Constitution
the principle does not appear to have enjoyed much favor in the State governments. It existed but in two, and in one of these
there was a plural executive. If we would search for the motives which operated upon the purely patriotic and enlightened
assembly which framed the Constitution for the adoption of a provision so apparently repugnant to the leading democratic principle
that the majority should govern, we must reject the idea that they anticipated from it any benefit to the ordinary course
of legislation. They knew too well the high degree of intelligence which existed among the people and the enlightened character
of the State legislatures not to have the fullest confidence that the two bodies elected by them would be worthy representatives
of such constituents, and, of course, that they would require no aid in conceiving and maturing the measures which the circumstances
of the country might require. And it is preposterous to suppose that a thought could for a moment have been entertained that
the President, placed at the capital, in the center of the country, could better understand the wants and wishes of the people
than their own immediate representatives, who spend a part of every year among them, living with them, often laboring with
them, and bound to them by the triple tie of interest, duty, and affection. To assist or control Congress, then, in its ordinary
legislation could not, I conceive, have been the motive for conferring the veto power on the President. This argument acquires
additional force from the fact of its never having been thus used by the first six Presidents-and two of them were members
of the Convention, one presiding over its deliberations and the other bearing a larger share in consummating the labors of
that august body than any other person. But if bills were never returned to Congress by either of the Presidents above referred
to upon the ground of their being inexpedient or not as well adapted as they might be to the wants of the people, the veto
was applied upon that of want of conformity to the Constitution or because errors had been committed from a too hasty enactment.

There is another ground for the adoption of the veto principle, which had probably more influence in recommending it to the
Convention than any other. I refer to the security which it gives to the just and equitable action of the Legislature upon
all parts of the Union. It could not but have occurred to the Convention that in a country so extensive, embracing so great
a variety of soil and climate, and consequently of products, and which from the same causes must ever exhibit a great difference
in the amount of the population of its various sections, calling for a great diversity in the employments of the people, that
the legislation of the majority might not always justly regard the rights and interests of the minority, and that acts of
this character might be passed under an express grant by the words of the Constitution, and therefore not within the competency
of the judiciary to declare void; that however enlightened and patriotic they might suppose from past experience the members
of Congress might be, and however largely partaking, in the general, of the liberal feelings of the people, it was impossible
to expect that bodies so constituted should not sometimes be controlled by local interests and sectional feelings. It was
proper, therefore, to provide some umpire from whose situation and mode of appointment more independence and freedom from
such influences might be expected. Such a one was afforded by the executive department constituted by the Constitution. A
person elected to that high office, having his constituents in every section, State, and subdivision of the Union, must consider
himself bound by the most solemn sanctions to guard, protect, and defend the rights of all and of every portion, great or
small, from the injustice and oppression of the rest. I consider the veto power, therefore, given by the Constitution to the
Executive of the United States solely as a conservative power, to be used only first, to protect the Constitution from violation;
secondly, the people from the effects of hasty legislation where their will has been probably disregarded or not well understood,
and, thirdly, to prevent the effects of combinations violative of the rights of minorities. In reference to the second of
these objects I may observe that I consider it the right and privilege of the people to decide disputed points of the Constitution
arising from the general grant of power to Congress to carry into effect the powers expressly given; and I believe with Mr.
Madison that "repeated recognitions under varied circumstances in acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches
of the Government, accompanied by indications in different modes of the concurrence of the general will of the nation," as
affording to the President sufficient authority for his considering such disputed points as settled.

Upward of half a century has elapsed since the adoption of the present form of government. It would be an object more highly
desirable than the gratification of the curiosity of speculative statesmen if its precise situation could be ascertained,
a fair exhibit made of the operations of each of its departments, of the powers which they respectively claim and exercise,
of the collisions which have occurred between them or between the whole Government and those of the States or either of them.
We could then compare our actual condition after fifty years' trial of our system with what it was in the commencement of
its operations and ascertain whether the predictions of the patriots who opposed its adoption or the confident hopes of its
advocates have been best realized. The great dread of the former seems to have been that the reserved powers of the States
would be absorbed by those of the Federal Government and a consolidated power established, leaving to the States the shadow
only of that independent action for which they had so zealously contended and on the preservation of which they relied as
the last hope of liberty. Without denying that the result to which they looked with so much apprehension is in the way of
being realized, it is obvious that they did not clearly see the mode of its accomplishment. The General Government has seized
upon none of the reserved rights of the States. As far as any open warfare may have gone, the State authorities have amply
maintained their rights. To a casual observer our system presents no appearance of discord between the different members which
compose it. Even the addition of many new ones has produced no jarring. They move in their respective orbits in perfect harmony
with the central head and with each other. But there is still an undercurrent at work by which, if not seasonably checked,
the worst apprehensions of our antifederal patriots will be realized, and not only will the State authorities be overshadowed
by the great increase of power in the executive department of the General Government, but the character of that Government,
if not its designation, be essentially and radically changed. This state of things has been in part effected by causes inherent
in the Constitution and in part by the never-failing tendency of political power to increase itself. By making the President
the sole distributer of all the patronage of the Government the framers of the Constitution do not appear to have anticipated
at how short a period it would become a formidable instrument to control the free operations of the State governments. Of
trifling importance at first, it had early in Mr. Jefferson's Administration become so powerful as to create great alarm in
the mind of that patriot from the potent influence it might exert in controlling the freedom of the elective franchise. If
such could have then been the effects of its influence, how much greater must be the danger at this time, quadrupled in amount
as it certainly is and more completely under the control of the Executive will than their construction of their powers allowed
or the forbearing characters of all the early Presidents permitted them to make. But it is not by the extent of its patronage
alone that the executive department has become dangerous, but by the use which it appears may be made of the appointing power
to bring under its control the whole revenues of the country. The Constitution has declared it to be the duty of the President
to see that the laws are executed, and it makes him the Commander in Chief of the Armies and Navy of the United States. If
the opinion of the most approved writers upon that species of mixed government which in modern Europe is termed monarchy in
contradistinction to despotism is correct, there was wanting no other addition to the powers of our Chief Magistrate to stamp
a monarchical character on our Government but the control of the public finances; and to me it appears strange indeed that
anyone should doubt that the entire control which the President possesses over the officers who have the custody of the public
money, by the power of removal with or without cause, does, for all mischievous purposes at least, virtually subject the treasure
also to his disposal. The first Roman Emperor, in his attempt to seize the sacred treasure, silenced the opposition of the
officer to whose charge it had been committed by a significant allusion to his sword. By a selection of political instruments
for the care of the public money a reference to their commissions by a President would be quite as effectual an argument as
that of Caesar to the Roman knight. I am not insensible of the great difficulty that exists in drawing a proper plan for the
safe-keeping and disbursement of the public revenues, and I know the importance which has been attached by men of great abilities
and patriotism to the divorce, as it is called, of the Treasury from the banking institutions. It is not the divorce which
is complained of, but the unhallowed union of the Treasury with the executive department, which has created such extensive
alarm. To this danger to our republican institutions and that created by the influence given to the Executive through the
instrumentality of the Federal officers I propose to apply all the remedies which may be at my command. It was certainly a
great error in the framers of the Constitution not to have made the officer at the head of the Treasury Department entirely
independent of the Executive. He should at least have been removable only upon the demand of the popular branch of the Legislature.
I have determined never to remove a Secretary of the Treasury without communicating all the circumstances attending such removal
to both Houses of Congress.

The influence of the Executive in controlling the freedom of the elective franchise through the medium of the public officers
can be effectually checked by renewing the prohibition published by Mr. Jefferson forbidding their interference in elections
further than giving their own votes, and their own independence secured by an assurance of perfect immunity in exercising
this sacred privilege of freemen under the dictates of their own unbiased judgments. Never with my consent shall an officer
of the people, compensated for his services out of their pockets, become the pliant instrument of Executive will.

There is no part of the means placed in the hands of the Executive which might be used with greater effect for unhallowed
purposes than the control of the public press. The maxim which our ancestors derived from the mother country that "the freedom
of the press is the great bulwark of civil and religious liberty" is one of the most precious legacies which they have left
us. We have learned, too, from our own as well as the experience of other countries, that golden shackles, by whomsoever or
by whatever pretense imposed, are as fatal to it as the iron bonds of despotism. The presses in the necessary employment of
the Government should never be used "to clear the guilty or to varnish crime." A decent and manly examination of the acts
of the Government should be not only tolerated, but encouraged.

Upon another occasion I have given my opinion at some length upon the impropriety of Executive interference in the legislation
of Congress-that the article in the Constitution making it the duty of the President to communicate information and authorizing
him to recommend measures was not intended to make him the source in legislation, and, in particular, that he should never
be looked to for schemes of finance. It would be very strange, indeed, that the Constitution should have strictly forbidden
one branch of the Legislature from interfering in the origination of such bills and that it should be considered proper that
an altogether different department of the Government should be permitted to do so. Some of our best political maxims and opinions
have been drawn from our parent isle. There are others, however, which can not be introduced in our system without singular
incongruity and the production of much mischief, and this I conceive to be one. No matter in which of the houses of Parliament
a bill may originate nor by whom introduced-a minister or a member of the opposition-by the fiction of law, or rather of constitutional
principle, the sovereign is supposed to have prepared it agreeably to his will and then submitted it to Parliament for their
advice and consent. Now the very reverse is the case here, not only with regard to the principle, but the forms prescribed
by the Constitution. The principle certainly assigns to the only body constituted by the Constitution (the legislative body)
the power to make laws, and the forms even direct that the enactment should be ascribed to them. The Senate, in relation to
revenue bills, have the right to propose amendments, and so has the Executive by the power given him to return them to the
House of Representatives with his objections. It is in his power also to propose amendments in the existing revenue laws,
suggested by his observations upon their defective or injurious operation. But the delicate duty of devising schemes of revenue
should be left where the Constitution has placed it-with the immediate representatives of the people. For similar reasons
the mode of keeping the public treasure should be prescribed by them, and the further removed it may be from the control of
the Executive the more wholesome the arrangement and the more in accordance with republican principle.

Connected with this subject is the character of the currency. The idea of making it exclusively metallic, however well intended,
appears to me to be fraught with more fatal consequences than any other scheme having no relation to the personal rights of
the citizens that has ever been devised. If any single scheme could produce the effect of arresting at once that mutation
of condition by which thousands of our most indigent fellow-citizens by their industry and enterprise are raised to the possession
of wealth, that is the one. If there is one measure better calculated than another to produce that state of things so much
deprecated by all true republicans, by which the rich are daily adding to their hoards and the poor sinking deeper into penury,
it is an exclusive metallic currency. Or if there is a process by which the character of the country for generosity and nobleness
of feeling may be destroyed by the great increase and neck toleration of usury, it is an exclusive metallic currency.

Amongst the other duties of a delicate character which the President is called upon to perform is the supervision of the government
of the Territories of the United States. Those of them which are destined to become members of our great political family
are compensated by their rapid progress from infancy to manhood for the partial and temporary deprivation of their political
rights. It is in this District only where American citizens are to be found who under a settled policy are deprived of many
important political privileges without any inspiring hope as to the future. Their only consolation under circumstances of
such deprivation is that of the devoted exterior guards of a camp-that their sufferings secure tranquillity and safety within.
Are there any of their countrymen, who would subject them to greater sacrifices, to any other humiliations than those essentially
necessary to the security of the object for which they were thus separated from their fellow-citizens? Are their rights alone
not to be guaranteed by the application of those great principles upon which all our constitutions are founded? We are told
by the greatest of British orators and statesmen that at the commencement of the War of the Revolution the most stupid men
in England spoke of "their American subjects." Are there, indeed, citizens of any of our States who have dreamed of their
subjects in the District of Columbia? Such dreams can never be realized by any agency of mine. The people of the District
of Columbia are not the subjects of the people of the States, but free American citizens. Being in the latter condition when
the Constitution was formed, no words used in that instrument could have been intended to deprive them of that character.
If there is anything in the great principle of unalienable rights so emphatically insisted upon in our Declaration of Independence,
they could neither make nor the United States accept a surrender of their liberties and become the subjects-in other words,
the slaves-of their former fellow-citizens. If this be true-and it will scarcely be denied by anyone who has a correct idea
of his own rights as an American citizen-the grant to Congress of exclusive jurisdiction in the District of Columbia can be
interpreted, so far as respects the aggregate people of the United States, as meaning nothing more than to allow to Congress
the controlling power necessary to afford a free and safe exercise of the functions assigned to the General Government by
the Constitution. In all other respects the legislation of Congress should be adapted to their peculiar position and wants
and be conformable with their deliberate opinions of their own interests.

I have spoken of the necessity of keeping the respective departments of the Government, as well as all the other authorities
of our country, within their appropriate orbits. This is a matter of difficulty in some cases, as the powers which they respectively
claim are often not defined by any distinct lines. Mischievous, however, in their tendencies as collisions of this kind may
be, those which arise between the respective communities which for certain purposes compose one nation are much more so, for
no such nation can long exist without the careful culture of those feelings of confidence and affection which are the effective
bonds to union between free and confederated states. Strong as is the tie of interest, it has been often found ineffectual.
Men blinded by their passions have been known to adopt measures for their country in direct opposition to all the suggestions
of policy. The alternative, then, is to destroy or keep down a bad passion by creating and fostering a good one, and this
seems to be the corner stone upon which our American political architects have reared the fabric of our Government. The cement
which was to bind it and perpetuate its existence was the affectionate attachment between all its members. To insure the continuance
of this feeling, produced at first by a community of dangers, of sufferings, and of interests, the advantages of each were
made accessible to all. No participation in any good possessed by any member of our extensive Confederacy, except in domestic
government, was withheld from the citizen of any other member. By a process attended with no difficulty, no delay, no expense
but that of removal, the citizen of one might become the citizen of any other, and successively of the whole. The lines, too,
separating powers to be exercised by the citizens of one State from those of another seem to be so distinctly drawn as to
leave no room for misunderstanding. The citizens of each State unite in their persons all the privileges which that character
confers and all that they may claim as citizens of the United States, but in no case can the same persons at the same time
act as the citizen of two separate States, and he is therefore positively precluded from any interference with the reserved
powers of any State but that of which he is for the time being a citizen. He may, indeed, offer to the citizens of other States
his advice as to their management, and the form in which it is tendered is left to his own discretion and sense of propriety.
It may be observed, however, that organized associations of citizens requiring compliance with their wishes too much resemble
the recommendations of Athens to her allies, supported by an armed and powerful fleet. It was, indeed, to the ambition of
the leading States of Greece to control the domestic concerns of the others that the destruction of that celebrated Confederacy,
and subsequently of all its members, is mainly to be attributed, and it is owing to the absence of that spirit that the Helvetic
Confederacy has for so many years been preserved. Never has there been seen in the institutions of the separate members of
any confederacy more elements of discord. In the principles and forms of government and religion, as well as in the circumstances
of the several Cantons, so marked a discrepancy was observable as to promise anything but harmony in their intercourse or
permanency in their alliance, and yet for ages neither has been interrupted. Content with the positive benefits which their
union produced, with the independence and safety from foreign aggression which it secured, these sagacious people respected
the institutions of each other, however repugnant to their own principles and prejudices.

Our Confederacy, fellow-citizens, can only be preserved by the same forbearance. Our citizens must be content with the exercise
of the powers with which the Constitution clothes them. The attempt of those of one State to control the domestic institutions
of another can only result in feelings of distrust and jealousy, the certain harbingers of disunion, violence, and civil war,
and the ultimate destruction of our free institutions. Our Confederacy is perfectly illustrated by the terms and principles
governing a common copartnership. There is a fund of power to be exercised under the direction of the joint councils of the
allied members, but that which has been reserved by the individual members is intangible by the common Government or the individual
members composing it. To attempt it finds no support in the principles of our Constitution.

It should be our constant and earnest endeavor mutually to cultivate a spirit of concord and harmony among the various parts
of our Confederacy. Experience has abundantly taught us that the agitation by citizens of one part of the Union of a subject
not confided to the General Government, but exclusively under the guardianship of the local authorities, is productive of
no other consequences than bitterness, alienation, discord, and injury to the very cause which is intended to be advanced.
Of all the great interests which appertain to our country, that of union-cordial, confiding, fraternal union-is by far the
most important, since it is the only true and sure guaranty of all others.

In consequence of the embarrassed state of business and the currency, some of the States may meet with difficulty in their
financial concerns. However deeply we may regret anything imprudent or excessive in the engagements into which States have
entered for purposes of their own, it does not become us to disparage the States governments, nor to discourage them from
making proper efforts for their own relief. On the contrary, it is our duty to encourage them to the extent of our constitutional
authority to apply their best means and cheerfully to make all necessary sacrifices and submit to all necessary burdens to
fulfill their engagements and maintain their credit, for the character and credit of the several States form a part of the
character and credit of the whole country. The resources of the country are abundant, the enterprise and activity of our people
proverbial, and we may well hope that wise legislation and prudent administration by the respective governments, each acting
within its own sphere, will restore former prosperity.

Unpleasant and even dangerous as collisions may sometimes be between the constituted authorities of the citizens of our country
in relation to the lines which separate their respective jurisdictions, the results can be of no vital injury to our institutions
if that ardent patriotism, that devoted attachment to liberty, that spirit of moderation and forbearance for which our countrymen
were once distinguished, continue to be cherished. If this continues to be the ruling passion of our souls, the weaker feeling
of the mistaken enthusiast will be corrected, the Utopian dreams of the scheming politician dissipated, and the complicated
intrigues of the demagogue rendered harmless. The spirit of liberty is the sovereign balm for every injury which our institutions
may receive. On the contrary, no care that can be used in the construction of our Government, no division of powers, no distribution
of checks in its several departments, will prove effectual to keep us a free people if this spirit is suffered to decay; and
decay it will without constant nurture. To the neglect of this duty the best historians agree in attributing the ruin of all
the republics with whose existence and fall their writings have made us acquainted. The same causes will ever produce the
same effects, and as long as the love of power is a dominant passion of the human bosom, and as long as the understandings
of men can be warped and their affections changed by operations upon their passions and prejudices, so long will the liberties
of a people depend on their own constant attention to its preservation. The danger to all well-established free governments
arises from the unwillingness of the people to believe in its existence or from the influence of designing men diverting their
attention from the quarter whence it approaches to a source from which it can never come. This is the old trick of those who
would usurp the government of their country. In the name of democracy they speak, warning the people against the influence
of wealth and the danger of aristocracy. History, ancient and modern, is full of such examples. Caesar became the master of
the Roman people and the senate under the pretense of supporting the democratic claims of the former against the aristocracy
of the latter; Cromwell, in the character of protector of the liberties of the people, became the dictator of England, and
Bolívar possessed himself of unlimited power with the title of his country's liberator. There is, on the contrary, no instance
on record of an extensive and well-established republic being changed into an aristocracy. The tendencies of all such governments
in their decline is to monarchy, and the antagonist principle to liberty there is the spirit of faction-a spirit which assumes
the character and in times of great excitement imposes itself upon the people as the genuine spirit of freedom, and, like
the false Christs whose coming was foretold by the Savior, seeks to, and were it possible would, impose upon the true and
most faithful disciples of liberty. It is in periods like this that it behooves the people to be most watchful of those to
whom they have intrusted power. And although there is at times much difficulty in distinguishing the false from the true spirit,
a calm and dispassionate investigation will detect the counterfeit, as well by the character of its operations as the results
that are produced. The true spirit of liberty, although devoted, persevering, bold, and uncompromising in principle, that
secured is mild and tolerant and scrupulous as to the means it employs, whilst the spirit of party, assuming to be that of
liberty, is harsh, vindictive, and intolerant, and totally reckless as to the character of the allies which it brings to the
aid of its cause. When the genuine spirit of liberty animates the body of a people to a thorough examination of their affairs,
it leads to the excision of every excrescence which may have fastened itself upon any of the departments of the government,
and restores the system to its pristine health and beauty. But the reign of an intolerant spirit of party amongst a free people
seldom fails to result in a dangerous accession to the executive power introduced and established amidst unusual professions
of devotion to democracy.

The foregoing remarks relate almost exclusively to matters connected with our domestic concerns. It may be proper, however,
that I should give some indications to my fellow-citizens of my proposed course of conduct in the management of our foreign
relations. I assure them, therefore, that it is my intention to use every means in my power to preserve the friendly intercourse
which now so happily subsists with every foreign nation, and that although, of course, not well informed as to the state of
pending negotiations with any of them, I see in the personal characters of the sovereigns, as well as in the mutual interests
of our own and of the governments with which our relations are most intimate, a pleasing guaranty that the harmony so important
to the interests of their subjects as well as of our citizens will not be interrupted by the advancement of any claim or pretension
upon their part to which our honor would not permit us to yield. Long the defender of my country's rights in the field, I
trust that my fellow-citizens will not see in my earnest desire to preserve peace with foreign powers any indication that
their rights will ever be sacrificed or the honor of the nation tarnished by any admission on the part of their Chief Magistrate
unworthy of their former glory. In our intercourse with our aboriginal neighbors the same liberality and justice which marked
the course prescribed to me by two of my illustrious predecessors when acting under their direction in the discharge of the
duties of superintendent and commissioner shall be strictly observed. I can conceive of no more sublime spectacle, none more
likely to propitiate an impartial and common Creator, than a rigid adherence to the principles of justice on the part of a
powerful nation in its transactions with a weaker and uncivilized people whom circumstances have placed at its disposal.

Before concluding, fellow-citizens, I must say something to you on the subject of the parties at this time existing in our
country. To me it appears perfectly clear that the interest of that country requires that the violence of the spirit by which
those parties are at this time governed must be greatly mitigated, if not entirely extinguished, or consequences will ensue
which are appalling to be thought of.

If parties in a republic are necessary to secure a degree of vigilance sufficient to keep the public functionaries within
the bounds of law and duty, at that point their usefulness ends. Beyond that they become destructive of public virtue, the
parent of a spirit antagonist to that of liberty, and eventually its inevitable conqueror. We have examples of republics where
the love of country and of liberty at one time were the dominant passions of the whole mass of citizens, and yet, with the
continuance of the name and forms of free government, not a vestige of these qualities remaining in the bosoms of any one
of its citizens. It was the beautiful remark of a distinguished English writer that "in the Roman senate Octavius had a party
and Anthony a party, but the Commonwealth had none." Yet the senate continued to meet in the temple of liberty to talk of
the sacredness and beauty of the Commonwealth and gaze at the statues of the elder Brutus and of the Curtii and Decii, and
the people assembled in the forum, not, as in the days of Camillus and the Scipios, to cast their free votes for annual magistrates
or pass upon the acts of the senate, but to receive from the hands of the leaders of the respective parties their share of
the spoils and to shout for one or the other, as those collected in Gaul or Egypt and the lesser Asia would furnish the larger
dividend. The spirit of liberty had fled, and, avoiding the abodes of civilized man, had sought protection in the wilds of
Scythia or Scandinavia; and so under the operation of the same causes and influences it will fly from our Capitol and our
forums. A calamity so awful, not only to our country, but to the world, must be deprecated by every patriot and every tendency
to a state of things likely to produce it immediately checked. Such a tendency has existed-does exist. Always the friend of
my countrymen, never their flatterer, it becomes my duty to say to them from this high place to which their partiality has
exalted me that there exists in the land a spirit hostile to their best interests-hostile to liberty itself. It is a spirit
contracted in its views, selfish in its objects. It looks to the aggrandizement of a few even to the destruction of the interests
of the whole. The entire remedy is with the people. Something, however, may be effected by the means which they have placed
in my hands. It is union that we want, not of a party for the sake of that party, but a union of the whole country for the
sake of the whole country, for the defense of its interests and its honor against foreign aggression, for the defense of those
principles for which our ancestors so gloriously contended. As far as it depends upon me it shall be accomplished. All the
influence that I possess shall be exerted to prevent the formation at least of an Executive party in the halls of the legislative
body. I wish for the support of no member of that body to any measure of mine that does not satisfy his judgment and his sense
of duty to those from whom he holds his appointment, nor any confidence in advance from the people but that asked for by Mr.
Jefferson, "to give firmness and effect to the legal administration of their affairs."

I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound
reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious
responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness; and to that good Being who has blessed us by
the gifts of civil and religious freedom, who watched over and prospered the labors of our fathers and has hitherto preserved
to us institutions far exceeding in excellence those of any other people, let us unite in fervently commending every interest
of our beloved country in all future time.

Fellow-citizens, being fully invested with that high office to which the partiality of my countrymen has called me, I now
take an affectionate leave of you. You will bear with you to your homes the remembrance of the pledge I have this day given
to discharge all the high duties of my exalted station according to the best of my ability, and I shall enter upon their performance
with entire confidence in the support of a just and generous people.

Called upon to undertake the duties of the first executive office of our country, I avail myself of the presence of that portion
of my fellow-citizens which is here assembled to express my grateful thanks for the favor with which they have been pleased
to look toward me, to declare a sincere consciousness that the task is above my talents, and that I approach it with those
anxious and awful presentiments which the greatness of the charge and the weakness of my powers so justly inspire. A rising
nation, spread over a wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas with the rich productions of their industry, engaged
in commerce with nations who feel power and forget right, advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye-when
I contemplate these transcendent objects, and see the honor, the happiness, and the hopes of this beloved country committed
to the issue, and the auspices of this day, I shrink from the contemplation, and humble myself before the magnitude of the
undertaking. Utterly, indeed, should I despair did not the presence of many whom I here see remind me that in the other high
authorities provided by our Constitution I shall find resources of wisdom, of virtue, and of zeal on which to rely under all
difficulties. To you, then, gentlemen, who are charged with the sovereign functions of legislation, and to those associated
with you, I look with encouragement for that guidance and support which may enable us to steer with safety the vessel in which
we are all embarked amidst the conflicting elements of a troubled world.

During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn
an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being
now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange
themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred
principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that
the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens,
unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and
even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance
under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic,
as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during
the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that
the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by
some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference
of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.
If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed
as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed,
that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would
the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm
on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve
itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every
man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own
personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted
with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative
government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded
to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth
and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions
of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and
their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them
inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence,
which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter-with
all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens-a
wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate
their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is
the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper
you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape
its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not
all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce,
and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their
rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies;
the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and
safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people-a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped
by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority,
the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism;
a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the
supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the
honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as
its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion;
freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected.
These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution
and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the
creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust;
and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road
which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.

I repair, then, fellow-citizens, to the post you have assigned me. With experience enough in subordinate offices to have seen
the difficulties of this the greatest of all, I have learnt to expect that it will rarely fall to the lot of imperfect man
to retire from this station with the reputation and the favor which bring him into it. Without pretensions to that high confidence
you reposed in our first and greatest revolutionary character, whose preeminent services had entitled him to the first place
in his country's love and destined for him the fairest page in the volume of faithful history, I ask so much confidence only
as may give firmness and effect to the legal administration of your affairs. I shall often go wrong through defect of judgment.
When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask your
indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn
what they would not if seen in all its parts. The approbation implied by your suffrage is a great consolation to me for the
past, and my future solicitude will be to retain the good opinion of those who have bestowed it in advance, to conciliate
that of others by doing them all the good in my power, and to be instrumental to the happiness and freedom of all.

Relying, then, on the patronage of your good will, I advance with obedience to the work, ready to retire from it whenever
you become sensible how much better choice it is in your power to make. And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies
of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.

Abraham Lincoln: The Dred Scott Decision and the Declaration of Independence

The Dred Scott decision of March 1857 dealt a severe blow to Republican efforts to prevent the expansion of slavery. As the leading Republican in
Illinois, Abraham Lincoln felt bound to oppose Democrats who upheld the court's decision. Lincoln took his stand in the following speech delivered
at Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857, a full year before his campaign against Stephen A. Douglas for the U.S. Senate. Douglas
would win that election, which became a referendum on slavery.

And now as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares two propositions: first, that a Negro cannot sue in the United
States courts; and, second, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the territories. It was made by a divided Court, dividing
differently on the different points. Judge Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision, and in that respect I shall
follow his example, believing I could no more improve on McLean and Curtis than he could on Taney.

He denounces all who question the correctness of that decision as offering violent resistance to it. But who resists it? Who
has, in spite of the decision, declared Dred Scott free and resisted the authority of his master over him?

Judicial decisions have two uses: first, to absolutely determine the case decided; and, second, to indicate to the public
how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called "precedents" and "authorities."

We believe as much as Judge Douglas (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for, the judicial department of government.
We think its decisions on constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control not only the particular cases decided
but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that
instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the Court
that made it has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to overrule this. We offer no resistance
to it.

Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents according to circumstances. That this should be so accords
both with common sense and the customary understanding of the legal profession.

If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias,
and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and
had been in no part based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it has been
before the Court more than once, and had there been affirmed and reaffirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps
would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, not to acquiesce in it as a precedent.

But when, as is true, we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious,
it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country. But Judge
Douglas considers this view awful. Hear him:

The courts are the tribunals prescribed by the Constitution and created by the authority of the people to determine, expound,
and enforce the law. Hence, whoever resists the final decision of the highest judicial tribunal aims a deadly blow at our
whole republican system of government--a blow which, if successful, would place all our rights and liberties at the mercy
of passion, anarchy, and violence. I repeat, therefore, that if resistance to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United
States, in a matter like the points decided in the Dred Scott case, clearly within their jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution,
shall be forced upon the country as a political issue, it will become a distinct and naked issue between the friends and enemies
of the Constitution--the friends and the enemies of the supremacy of the laws.

Why, this same Supreme Court once decided a national bank to be constitutional; but General Jackson, as President of the United
States, disregarded the decision and vetoed a bill for a recharter, partly on constitutional ground, declaring that each public
functionary must support the Constitution "as he understands it." But hear the general's own words. Here they are, taken from
his veto message:

It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered as settled
by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source
of authority and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power, except where the acquiescence of the
people and the states can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against
the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress, in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another, in 1811, decided against
it. One Congress, in 1815, decided against a bank; another, in 1816, decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress,
therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the states, the expressions of legislative, judicial,
and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as four to one. There is nothing in precedent,
therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.

I drop the quotations merely to remark that all there ever was in the way of precedent up to the Dred Scott decision, on the
points therein decided, had been against that decision. But hear General Jackson further:

If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities
of this government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must, each for itself, be guided by its own opinion of the
Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands
it and not as it is understood by others.

Again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce that bank decision and applaud General Jackson for disregarding it. It
would be interesting for him to look over his recent speech and see how exactly his fierce philippics against us for resisting
Supreme Court decisions fall upon his own head. It will call to mind a long and fierce political war in this country, upon
an issue which, in his own language, and, of course, in his own changeless estimation, was "a distinct issue between the friends
and the enemies of the Constitution," and in which war he fought in the ranks of the enemies of the Constitution.

I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was in part based on assumed historical facts which were not really
true, and I ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons for saying this; I therefore give an instance or two
which I think fully sustain me. Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the majority of the Court, insists at great
length that Negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution
of the United States.

On the contrary, Judge Curtis, in his dissenting opinion, shows that in five of the then thirteen states--to wit, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina--free Negroes were voters and in proportion to their numbers had the
same part in making the Constitution that the white people had. He shows this with so much particularity as to leave no doubt
of its truth; and as a sort of conclusion on that point holds the following language:

The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States through the action, in each state, of those
persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of the state. In some
of the states, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on the subject. These colored persons
were not only included in the body of "the people of the United States" by whom the Constitution was ordained and established,
but in at least five of the states they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question
of its adoption.

Again, Chief Justice Taney says:

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in
the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence and when the Constitution
of the United States was framed and adopted.

And, again, after quoting from the Declaration, he says:

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument
at this day would be so understood.

In these the Chief Justice does not directly assert but plainly assumes as a fact that the public estimate of the black man
is more favorable now than it was in the days of the Revolution. This assumption is a mistake. In some trifling particulars
the condition of that race has been ameliorated; but, as a whole, in this country, the change between then and now is decidedly
the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years. In two of the
five states--New Jersey and North Carolina--that then gave the free Negro the right of voting, the right has since been taken
away, and in a third--New York--it has been greatly abridged; while it has not been extended, so far as I know, to a single
additional state, though the number of the states has more than doubled.

In those days, as I understand, masters could, at their own pleasure, emancipate their slaves; but, since then, such legal
restraints have been made upon emancipation as to amount almost to prohibition. In those days, legislatures held the unquestioned
power to abolish slavery in their respective states, but now it is becoming quite fashionable for state constitutions to withhold
that power from the legislatures. In those days, by common consent, the spread of the black man's bondage to the new countries
was prohibited, but now Congress decides that it will not continue the prohibition, and the Supreme Court decides that it
could not if it would. In those days, our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all and thought to include all; but
now, to aid in making the bondage of the Negro universal and eternal, it is assailed and sneered at and construed, and hawked
at and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it.

All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon is after him, ambition follows, philosophy follows, and
the theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They have him in his prison house; they have searched his person and left
no prying instrument with him. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him; and now they have him, as
it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key--the keys
in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant places; and they stand musing
as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape more
complete than it is.

It is grossly incorrect to say or assume that the public estimate of the Negro is more favorable now than it was at the origin
of the government.

Three years and a half ago Judge Douglas brought forward his famous Nebraska bill. The country was at once in a blaze. He
scorned all opposition and carried it through Congress. Since then he has seen himself superseded in a presidential nomination
by one endorsing the general doctrine of his measure but at the same time standing clear of the odium of its untimely agitation
and its gross breach of national faith; and he has seen that successful rival constitutionally elected, not by the strength
of friends but by the division of adversaries, being in a popular minority of nearly 400,000 votes. He has seen his chief
aids in his own state, Shields and Richardson, politically speaking, successively tried, convicted, and executed for an offense
not their own, but his. And now he sees his own case standing next on the docket for trial.

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people at the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white
and black races; and Judge Douglas evidently is basing his chief hope upon the chances of his being able to appropriate the
benefit of this disgust to himself. If he can, by much drumming and repeating, fasten the odium of that idea upon his adversaries,
he thinks he can struggle through the storm. He therefore clings to this hope, as a drowning man to the last plank. He makes
an occasion for lugging it in from the opposition of the Dred Scott decision. He finds the Republicans insisting that the
Declaration of Independence includes all men, black as well as white, and forthwith he boldly denies that it includes Negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely
that all who contend it does do so only because they want to vote, and eat, and sleep, and marry with Negroes! He will have
it that they cannot be consistent else.

Now I protest against the counterfeit logic which concludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a slave, I must
necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either. I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly
is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of anyone else,
she is my equal and the equal of all others.

Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to
include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include
Negroes by the fact that they did not at once actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this grave argument
comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact that they did not at once, or ever afterward, actually place all white people
on an equality with one another. And this is the staple argument of both the chief justice and the senator for doing this
obvious violence to the plain, unmistakable language of the Declaration.

I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined
with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal--equal with "certain inalienable rights,
among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert
the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet that they were about to confer it immediately
upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that enforcement of
it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.

They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all and revered by all; constantly looked
to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading
and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The assertion
that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed
in the Declaration not for that but for future use. Its authors meant it to be--as, thank God, it is now proving itself--a
stumbling block to all those who in aftertimes might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism.
They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant, when such should reappear in this fair land and commence
their vocation, they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.

I have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and object of that part of the Declaration of Independence which declares
that "all men are created equal."

Now let us hear Judge Douglas' view of the same subject, as I find it in the printed report of his late speech. Here it is:

No man can vindicate the character, motives, and conduct of the signers of the Declaration of Independence except upon the
hypothesis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when they declared all men to have been created
equal; that they were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in
Great Britain; that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. The Declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized
world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British Crown and dissolving their connection with the mother country.

My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour and ponder well upon it; see what a mere wreck--mangled ruin--it
makes of our once glorious Declaration.

"They were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain!"
Why, according to this, not only Negroes but white people outside of Great Britain and America were not spoken of in that
instrument. The English, Irish, and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included, to be sure, but the French, Germans,
and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the judge's inferior races!

I had thought the Declaration promised something better than the condition of British subjects; but no, it only meant that
we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condition. According to that, it gave no promise that, having
kicked off the king and lords of Great Britain, we should not at once be saddled with a king and lords of our own.

I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere; but no, it
merely "was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance
from the British Crown and dissolving their connection with the mother country." Why, that object having been effected some
eighty years ago, the Declaration is of no practical use now: mere rubbish, old wadding left to rot on the battlefield after
the victory is won.

I understand you are preparing to celebrate the "Fourth" tomorrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no reference
to the present; and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred to at that day. But I suppose you
will celebrate and will even go as far as to read the Declaration. Suppose, after you read it once in the old-fashioned way,
you read it once more with Judge Douglas' version. It will then run thus: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all
British subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago were created equal to all British subjects born and then
residing in Great Britain."

And now I appeal to all--to Democrats as well as others--are you really willing that the Declaration shall thus be frittered
away--thus left no more, at most, than an interesting memorial of the dead past--thus shorn of its vitality and practical
value and left without the germ or even the suggestion of the individual rights of man in it?

But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing of blood by the white and black races. Agreed for once;
a thousand times agreed. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black
women; and so let them be married. On this point we fully agree with the judge, and when he shall show that his policy is
better adapted to prevent amalgamation than ours, we shall drop ours and adopt his. Let us see. In 1850 there were in the
United States 405,751 mulattoes. Very few of these are the offspring of whites and free blacks; nearly all have sprung from
black slaves and white masters.

A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation; but, as an immediate separation is impossible, the
next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in
Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas. That is at least one self-evident truth. A few free colored persons may get into
the free states, in any event; but their number is too insignificant to amount to much in the way of mixing blood. In 1850
there were in the free states 56,649 mulattoes; but for the most part they were not born there; they came from the slave states,
ready made up. In the same year the slave states had 348,874 mulattoes, all of home production. The proportion of free mulattoes
to free blacks--the only colored classes in the free states--is much greater in the slave than in the free states. It is worthy
of note, too, that among the free states those which make the colored man the nearest equal to the white have proportionably
the fewest mulattoes, the least of amalgamation. In New Hampshire, the state which goes farthest toward equality between the
races, there are just 184 mulattoes, while there are in Virginia--how many do you think?--79,775, being 23,126 more than in
all the free states together.

These statistics show that slavery is the greatest source of amalgamation, and next to it, not the elevation, but the degradation
of the free blacks. Yet Judge Douglas dreads the slightest restraints on the spread of slavery, and the slightest human recognition
of the Negro, as tending horribly to amalgamation.

The very Dred Scott case affords a strong test as to which party most favors amalgamation, the Republicans or the dear Union-saving
Democracy. Dred Scott, his wife, and two daughters were all involved in the suit. We desired the Court to have held that they
were citizens so far at least as to entitle them to a hearing as to whether they were free or not; and then, also, that they
were in fact and in law really free. Could we have had our way, the chances of these black girls ever mixing their blood with
that of white people would have been diminished at least to the extent that it could not have been without their consent.
But Judge Douglas is delighted to have them decided to be slaves and not human enough to have a hearing, even if they were
free, and thus left subject to the forced concubinage of their masters and liable to become the mothers of mulattoes in spite
of themselves: the very state of case that produces nine-tenths of all the mulattoes--all the mixing of blood in the nation.

Of course, I state this case as an illustration only, not meaning to say or intimate that the master of Dred Scott and his
family, or any more than a percentage of masters generally, are inclined to exercise this particular power which they hold
over their female slaves.

I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the
members of the Republican Party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing
in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it and that the chief
plank in their platform--opposition to the spread of slavery--is most favorable to that separation.

Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing
anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard civilization incidentally. The enterprise
is a difficult one; but "where there is a will there is a way," and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs
from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same
time favorable to, or at least not against, our interest to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a
way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include 400,000 fighting men, went
out of Egyptian bondage in a body.

How differently the respective courses of the Democratic and Republican parties incidentally bear on the question of forming
a will--a public sentiment--for colonization is easy to see. The Republicans inculcate, with whatever of ability they can,
that the Negro is a man, that his bondage is cruelly wrong, and that the field of his oppression ought not to be enlarged.
The Democrats deny his manhood; deny, or dwarf to insignificance, the wrong of his bondage; so far as possible, crush all
sympathy for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and disgust against him; compliment themselves as Union-savers for doing
so; and call the indefinite outspreading of his bondage "a sacred right of self-government."

The plainest print cannot be read through a gold eagle; and it will be ever hard to find many men who will send a slave to
Liberia, and pay his passage, while they can send him to a new country--Kansas, for instance--and sell him for $1,500, and
the rise.

Anyone who has taken the oath I have just taken must feel a heavy weight of responsibility. If not, he has no conception of
the powers and duties of the office upon which he is about to enter, or he is lacking in a proper sense of the obligation
which the oath imposes.

The office of an inaugural address is to give a summary outline of the main policies of the new administration, so far as
they can be anticipated. I have had the honor to be one of the advisers of my distinguished predecessor, and, as such, to
hold up his hands in the reforms he has initiated. I should be untrue to myself, to my promises, and to the declarations of
the party platform upon which I was elected to office, if I did not make the maintenance and enforcement of those reforms
a most important feature of my administration. They were directed to the suppression of the lawlessness and abuses of power
of the great combinations of capital invested in railroads and in industrial enterprises carrying on interstate commerce.
The steps which my predecessor took and the legislation passed on his recommendation have accomplished much, have caused a
general halt in the vicious policies which created popular alarm, and have brought about in the business affected a much higher
regard for existing law.

To render the reforms lasting, however, and to secure at the same time freedom from alarm on the part of those pursuing proper
and progressive business methods, further legislative and executive action are needed. Relief of the railroads from certain
restrictions of the antitrust law have been urged by my predecessor and will be urged by me. On the other hand, the administration
is pledged to legislation looking to a proper federal supervision and restriction to prevent excessive issues of bonds and
stock by companies owning and operating interstate commerce railroads.

Then, too, a reorganization of the Department of Justice, of the Bureau of Corporations in the Department of Commerce and
Labor, and of the Interstate Commerce Commission, looking to effective cooperation of these agencies, is needed to secure
a more rapid and certain enforcement of the laws affecting interstate railroads and industrial combinations.

I hope to be able to submit at the first regular session of the incoming Congress, in December next, definite suggestions
in respect to the needed amendments to the antitrust and the interstate commerce law and the changes required in the executive
departments concerned in their enforcement.

It is believed that with the changes to be recommended American business can be assured of that measure of stability and certainty
in respect to those things that may be done and those that are prohibited which is essential to the life and growth of all
business. Such a plan must include the right of the people to avail themselves of those methods of combining capital and effort
deemed necessary to reach the highest degree of economic efficiency, at the same time differentiating between combinations
based upon legitimate economic reasons and those formed with the intent of creating monopolies and artificially controlling
prices.

The work of formulating into practical shape such changes is creative word of the highest order, and requires all the deliberation
possible in the interval. I believe that the amendments to be proposed are just as necessary in the protection of legitimate
business as in the clinching of the reforms which properly bear the name of my predecessor.

A matter of most pressing importance is the revision of the tariff. In accordance with the promises of the platform upon which
I was elected, I shall call Congress into extra session to meet on the 15th day of March, in order that consideration may
be at once given to a bill revising the Dingley Act. This should secure an adequate revenue and adjust the duties in such
a manner as to afford to labor and to all industries in this country, whether of the farm, mine, or factory, protection by
tariff equal to the difference between the cost of production abroad and the cost of production here, and have a provision
which shall put into force, upon executive determination of certain facts, a higher or maximum tariff against those countries
whose trade policy toward us equitably requires such discrimination. It is thought that there has been such a change in conditions
since the enactment of the Dingley Act, drafted on a similarly protective principle, that the measure of the tariff above
stated will permit the reduction of rates in certain schedules and will require the advancement of few, if any.

The proposal to revise the tariff made in such an authoritative way as to lead the business community to count upon it necessarily
halts all those branches of business directly affected; and as these are most important, it disturbs the whole business of
the country. It is imperatively necessary, therefore, that a tariff bill be drawn in good faith in accordance with promises
made before the election by the party in power, and as promptly passed as due consideration will permit. It is not that the
tariff is more important in the long run than the perfecting of the reforms in respect to antitrust legislation and interstate
commerce regulation, but the need for action when the revision of the tariff has been determined upon is more immediate to
avoid embarrassment of business. To secure the needed speed in the passage of the tariff bill, it would seem wise to attempt
no other legislation at the extra session. I venture this as a suggestion only, for the course to be taken by Congress, upon
the call of the Executive, is wholly within its discretion.

In the mailing of a tariff bill the prime motive is taxation and the securing thereby of a revenue. Due largely to the business
depression which followed the financial panic of 1907, the revenue from customs and other sources has decreased to such an
extent that the expenditures for the current fiscal year will exceed the receipts by $100,000,000. It is imperative that such
a deficit shall not continue, and the framers of the tariff bill must, of course, have in mind the total revenues likely to
be produced by it and so arrange the duties as to secure an adequate income. Should it be impossible to do so by import duties,
new kinds of taxation must be adopted, and among these I recommend a graduated inheritance tax as correct in principle and
as certain and easy of collection.

The obligation on the part of those responsible for the expenditures made to carry on the Government, to be as economical
as possible, and to make the burden of taxation as light as possible, is plain, and should be affirmed in every declaration
of government policy. This is especially true when we are face to face with a heavy deficit. But when the desire to win the
popular approval leads to the cutting off of expenditures really needed to make the Government effective and to enable it
to accomplish its proper objects, the result is as much to be condemned as the waste of government funds in unnecessary expenditure.
The scope of a modern government in what it can and ought to accomplish for its people has been widened far beyond the principles
laid down by the old "laissez faire" school of political writers, and this widening has met popular approval.

In the Department of Agriculture the use of scientific experiments on a large scale and the spread of information derived
from them for the improvement of general agriculture must go on.

The importance of supervising business of great railways and industrial combinations and the necessary investigation and prosecution
of unlawful business methods are another necessary tax upon Government which did not exist half a century ago.

The putting into force of laws which shall secure the conservation of our resources, so far as they may be within the jurisdiction
of the Federal Government, including the most important work of saving and restoring our forests and the great improvement
of waterways, are all proper government functions which must involve large expenditure if properly performed. While some of
them, like the reclamation of arid lands, are made to pay for themselves, others are of such an indirect benefit that this
cannot be expected of them. A permanent improvement, like the Panama Canal, should be treated as a distinct enterprise, and
should be paid for by the proceeds of bonds, the issue of which will distribute its cost between the present and future generations
in accordance with the benefits derived. It may well be submitted to the serious consideration of Congress whether the deepening
and control of the channel of a great river system, like that of the Ohio or of the Mississippi, when definite and practical
plans for the enterprise have been approved and determined upon, should not be provided for in the same way.

Then, too, there are expenditures of Government absolutely necessary if our country is to maintain its proper place among
the nations of the world, and is to exercise its proper influence in defense of its own trade interests in the maintenance
of traditional American policy against the colonization of European monarchies in this hemisphere, and in the promotion of
peace and international morality. I refer to the cost of maintaining a proper army, a proper navy, and suitable fortifications
upon the mainland of the United States and in its dependencies.

We should have an army so organized and so officered as to be capable in time of emergency, in cooperation with the national
militia and under the provisions of a proper national volunteer law, rapidly to expand into a force sufficient to resist all
probable invasion from abroad and to furnish a respectable expeditionary force if necessary in the maintenance of our traditional
American policy which bears the name of President Monroe.

Our fortifications are yet in a state of only partial completeness, and the number of men to man them is insufficient. In
a few years however, the usual annual appropriations for our coast defenses, both on the mainland and in the dependencies,
will make them sufficient to resist all direct attack, and by that time we may hope that the men to man them will be provided
as a necessary adjunct. The distance of our shores from Europe and Asia of course reduces the necessity for maintaining under
arms a great army, but it does not take away the requirement of mere prudence-that we should have an army sufficiently large
and so constituted as to form a nucleus out of which a suitable force can quickly grow.

What has been said of the army may be affirmed in even a more emphatic way of the navy. A modern navy can not be improvised.
It must be built and in existence when the emergency arises which calls for its use and operation. My distinguished predecessor
has in many speeches and messages set out with great force and striking language the necessity for maintaining a strong navy
commensurate with the coast line, the governmental resources, and the foreign trade of our Nation; and I wish to reiterate
all the reasons which he has presented in favor of the policy of maintaining a strong navy as the best conservator of our
peace with other nations, and the best means of securing respect for the assertion of our rights, the defense of our interests,
and the exercise of our influence in international matters.

Our international policy is always to promote peace. We shall enter into any war with a full consciousness of the awful consequences
that it always entails, whether successful or not, and we, of course, shall make every effort consistent with national honor
and the highest national interest to avoid a resort to arms. We favor every instrumentality, like that of the Hague Tribunal
and arbitration treaties made with a view to its use in all international controversies, in order to maintain peace and to
avoid war. But we should be blind to existing conditions and should allow ourselves to become foolish idealists if we did
not realize that, with all the nations of the world armed and prepared for war, we must be ourselves in a similar condition,
in order to prevent other nations from taking advantage of us and of our inability to defend our interests and assert our
rights with a strong hand.

In the international controversies that are likely to arise in the Orient growing out of the question of the open door and
other issues the United States can maintain her interests intact and can secure respect for her just demands. She will not
be able to do so, however, if it is understood that she never intends to back up her assertion of right and her defense of
her interest by anything but mere verbal protest and diplomatic note. For these reasons the expenses of the army and navy
and of coast defenses should always be considered as something which the Government must pay for, and they should not be cut
off through mere consideration of economy. Our Government is able to afford a suitable army and a suitable navy. It may maintain
them without the slightest danger to the Republic or the cause of free institutions, and fear of additional taxation ought
not to change a proper policy in this regard.

The policy of the United States in the Spanish war and since has given it a position of influence among the nations that it
never had before, and should be constantly exerted to securing to its bona fide citizens, whether native or naturalized, respect
for them as such in foreign countries. We should make every effort to prevent humiliating and degrading prohibition against
any of our citizens wishing temporarily to sojourn in foreign countries because of race or religion.

The admission of Asiatic immigrants who cannot be amalgamated with our population has been made the subject either of prohibitory
clauses in our treaties and statutes or of strict administrative regulation secured by diplomatic negotiation. I sincerely
hope that we may continue to minimize the evils likely to arise from such immigration without unnecessary friction and by
mutual concessions between self-respecting governments. Meantime we must take every precaution to prevent, or failing that,
to punish outbursts of race feeling among our people against foreigners of whatever nationality who have by our grant a treaty
right to pursue lawful business here and to be protected against lawless assault or injury.

This leads me to point out a serious defect in the present federal jurisdiction, which ought to be remedied at once. Having
assured to other countries by treaty the protection of our laws for such of their subjects or citizens as we permit to come
within our jurisdiction, we now leave to a state or a city, not under the control of the Federal Government, the duty of performing
our international obligations in this respect. By proper legislation we may, and ought to, place in the hands of the Federal
Executive the means of enforcing the treaty rights of such aliens in the courts of the Federal Government. It puts our Government
in a pusillanimous position to make definite engagements to protect aliens and then to excuse the failure to perform those
engagements by an explanation that the duty to keep them is in States or cities, not within our control. If we would promise
we must put ourselves in a position to perform our promise. We cannot permit the possible failure of justice, due to local
prejudice in any State or municipal government, to expose us to the risk of a war which might be avoided if federal jurisdiction
was asserted by suitable legislation by Congress and carried out by proper proceedings instituted by the Executive in the
courts of the National Government.

One of the reforms to be carried out during the incoming administration is a change of our monetary and banking laws, so as
to secure greater elasticity in the forms of currency available for trade and to prevent the limitations of law from operating
to increase the embarrassment of a financial panic. The monetary commission, lately appointed, is giving full consideration
to existing conditions and to all proposed remedies, and will doubtless suggest one that will meet the requirements of business
and of public interest.

We may hope that the report will embody neither the narrow dew of those who believe that the sole purpose of the new system
should be to secure a large return on banking capital or of those who would have greater expansion of currency with little
regard to provisions for its immediate redemption or ultimate security. There is no subject of economic discussion so intricate
and so likely to evoke differing views and dogmatic statements as this one. The commission, in studying the general influence
of currency on business and of business on currency, have wisely extended their investigations in European banking and monetary
methods. The information that they have derived from such experts as they have found abroad will undoubtedly be found helpful
in the solution of the difficult problem they have in hand.

The incoming Congress should promptly fulfill the promise of the Republican platform and pass a proper postal savings bank
bill. It will not be unwise or excessive paternalism. The promise to repay by the Government will furnish an inducement to
savings deposits which private enterprise can not supply and at such a low rate of interest as not to withdraw custom from
existing banks. It will substantially increase the funds available for investment as capital in useful enterprises. It will
furnish absolute security which makes the proposed scheme of government guaranty of deposits so alluring, without its pernicious
results.

I sincerely hope that the incoming Congress will be alive, as it should be, to the importance of our foreign trade and of
encouraging it in every way feasible. The possibility of increasing this trade in the Orient, in the Philippines, and in South
America are known to everyone who has given the matter attention. The direct effect of free trade between this country and
the Philippines will be marked upon our sales of cottons, agricultural machinery, and other manufactures. The necessity of
the establishment of direct lines of steamers between North and South America has been brought to the attention of Congress
by my predecessor and by Mr. Root before and after his noteworthy visit to that continent, and I sincerely hope that Congress
may be induced to see the wisdom of a tentative effort to establish such lines by the use of mail subsidies.

The importance of the part which the Departments of Agriculture and of Commerce and Labor may play in ridding the markets
of Europe of prohibitions and discriminations against the importation of our products is fully understood, and it is hoped
that the use of the maximum and minimum feature of our tariff law to be soon passed will be effective to remove many of those
restrictions.

The Panama Canal will have a most important bearing upon the trade between the eastern and far western sections of our country, and will greatly
increase the facilities for transportation between the eastern and the western seaboard, and may possibly revolutionize the
transcontinental rates with respect to bulky merchandise. It will also have a most beneficial effect to increase the trade
between the eastern seaboard of the United States and the western coast of South America, and, indeed, with some of the important
ports on the east coast of South America reached by rail from the west coast.

The work on the canal is making most satisfactory progress. The type of the canal as a lock canal was fixed by Congress after
a full consideration of the conflicting reports of the majority and minority of the consulting board, and after the recommendation
of the War Department and the Executive upon those reports. Recent suggestion that something had occurred on the Isthmus to
make the lock type of the canal less feasible than it was supposed to be when the reports were made and the policy determined
on led to a visit to the Isthmus of a board of competent engineers to examine the Gatun dam and locks, which are the key of
the lock type. The report of that board shows nothing has occurred in the nature of newly revealed evidence which should change
the views once formed in the original discussion. The construction will go on under a most effective organization controlled
by Colonel Goethals and his fellow army engineers associated with him, and will certainly be completed early in the next administration,
if not before.

Some type of canal must be constructed. The lock type has been selected. We are all in favor of having it built as promptly
as possible. We must not now, therefore, keep up a fire in the rear of the agents whom we have authorized to do our work on
the Isthmus. We must hold up their hands, and speaking for the incoming administration I wish to say that I propose to devote
all the energy possible and under my control to pushing of this work on the plans which have been adopted, and to stand behind
the men who are doing faithful, hard work to bring about the early completion of this, the greatest constructive enterprise
of modern times.

The governments of our dependencies in Porto Rico and the Philippines are progressing as favorably as could be desired. The
prosperity of Porto Rico continues unabated. The business conditions in the Philippines are not all that we could wish them
to be, but with the passage of the new tariff bill permitting free trade between the United States and the archipelago, with
such limitations on sugar and tobacco as shall prevent injury to domestic interests in those products, we can count on an
improvement in business conditions in the Philippines and the development of a mutually profitable trade between this country
and the islands. Meantime our Government in each dependency is upholding the traditions of civil liberty and increasing popular
control which might be expected under American auspices. The work which we are doing there redounds to our credit as a nation.

I look forward with hope to increasing the already good feeling between the South and the other sections of the country. My
chief purpose is not to effect a change in the electoral vote of the Southern States. That is a secondary consideration. What
I look forward to is an increase in the tolerance of political views of all kinds and their advocacy throughout the South,
and the existence of a respectable political opposition in every State; even more than this, to an increased feeling on the
part of all the people in the South that this Government is their Government, and that its officers in their states are their
officers.

The consideration of this question can not, however, be complete and full without reference to the negro race, its progress and its present condition. The thirteenth amendment secured them freedom; the fourteenth amendment due
process of law, protection of property, and the pursuit of happiness; and the fifteenth amendment attempted to secure the negro against any deprivation of the privilege to vote because he was a negro. The thirteenth and
fourteenth amendments have been generally enforced and have secured the objects for which they are intended. While the fifteenth
amendment has not been generally observed in the past, it ought to be observed, and the tendency of Southern legislation today
is toward the enactment of electoral qualifications which shall square with that amendment. Of course, the mere adoption of
a constitutional law is only one step in the right direction. It must be fairly and justly enforced as well. In time both
will come. Hence it is clear to all that the domination of an ignorant, irresponsible element can be prevented by constitutional
laws which shall exclude from voting both negroes and whites not having education or other qualifications thought to be necessary
for a proper electorate. The danger of the control of an ignorant electorate has therefore passed. With this change, the interest
which many of the Southern white citizens take in the welfare of the negroes has increased. The colored men must base their
hope on the results of their own industry, self-restraint, thrift, and business success, as well as upon the aid and comfort
and sympathy which they may receive from their white neighbors of the South.

There was a time when Northerners who sympathized with the negro in his necessary struggle for better conditions sought to
give him the suffrage as a protection to enforce its exercise against the prevailing sentiment of the South. The movement
proved to be a failure. What remains is the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution and the right to have statutes of States
specifying qualifications for electors subjected to the test of compliance with that amendment. This is a great protection
to the negro. It never will be repealed, and it never ought to be repealed. If it had not passed, it might be difficult now
to adopt it; but with it in our fundamental law, the policy of Southern legislation must and will tend to obey it, and so
long as the statutes of the States meet the test of this amendment and are not otherwise in conflict with the Constitution
and laws of the United States, it is not the disposition or within the province of the Federal Government to interfere with
the regulation by Southern States of their domestic affairs. There is in the South a stronger feeling than ever among the
intelligent well-to-do, and influential element in favor of the industrial education of the negro and the encouragement of
the race to make themselves useful members of the community. The progress which the negro has made in the last fifty years,
from slavery, when its statistics are reviewed, is marvelous, and it furnishes every reason to hope that in the next twenty-five
years a still greater improvement in his condition as a productive member of society, on the farm, and in the shop, and in
other occupations may come.

The negroes are now Americans. Their ancestors came here years ago against their will, and this is their only country and
their only flag. They have shown themselves anxious to live for it and to die for it. Encountering the race feeling against
them, subjected at times to cruel injustice growing out of it, they may well have our profound sympathy and aid in the struggle
they are making. We are charged with the sacred duty of making their path as smooth and easy as we can. Any recognition of
their distinguished men, any appointment to office from among their number, is properly taken as an encouragement and an appreciation
of their progress, and this just policy should be pursued when suitable occasion offers.

But it may well admit of doubt whether, in the case of any race, an appointment of one of their number to a local office in
a community in which the race feeling is so widespread and acute as to interfere with the ease and facility with which the
local government business can be done by the appointee is of sufficient benefit by way of encouragement to the race to outweigh
the recurrence and increase of race feeling which such an appointment is likely to engender. Therefore the Executive, in recognizing
the negro race by appointments, must exercise a careful discretion not thereby to do it more harm than good. On the other
hand, we must be careful not to encourage the mere pretense of race feeling manufactured in the interest of individual political
ambition.

Personally, I have not the slightest race prejudice or feeling, and recognition of its existence only awakens in my heart
a deeper sympathy for those who have to bear it or suffer from it, and I question the wisdom of a policy which is likely to
increase it. Meantime, if nothing is done to prevent it, a better feeling between the negroes and the whites in the South
will continue to grow, and more and more of the white people will come to realize that the future of the South is to be much
benefited by the industrial and intellectual progress of the negro. The exercise of political franchises by those of this
race who are intelligent and well to do will be acquiesced in, and the right to vote will be withheld only from the ignorant
and irresponsible of both races.

There is one other matter to which I shall refer. It was made the subject of great controversy during the election and calls
for at least a passing reference now. My distinguished predecessor has given much attention to the cause of labor, with whose
struggle for better things he has shown the sincerest sympathy. At his instance Congress has passed the bill fixing the liability
of interstate carriers to their employees for injury sustained in the course of employment, abolishing the rule of fellow-servant
and the common-law rule as to contributory negligence, and substituting therefor the so-called rule of "comparative negligence."
It has also passed a law fixing the compensation of government employees for injuries sustained in the employ of the Government
through the negligence of the superior. It has also passed a model child-labor law for the District of Columbia. In previous
administrations an arbitration law for interstate commerce railroads and their employees, and laws for the application of
safety devices to save the lives and limbs of employees of interstate railroads had been passed. Additional legislation of
this kind was passed by the outgoing Congress.

I wish to say that insofar as I can I hope to promote the enactment of further legislation of this character. I am strongly
convinced that the Government should make itself as responsible to employees injured in its employ as an interstate-railway
corporation is made responsible by federal law to its employees; and I shall be glad, whenever any additional reasonable safety
device can be invented to reduce the loss of life and limb among railway employees, to urge Congress to require its adoption
by interstate railways.

Another labor question has arisen which has awakened the most excited discussion. That is in respect to the power of the federal
courts to issue injunctions in industrial disputes. As to that, my convictions are fixed. Take away from the courts, if it
could be taken away, the power to issue injunctions in labor disputes, and it would create a privileged class among the laborers
and save the lawless among their number from a most needful remedy available to all men for the protection of their business
against lawless invasion. The proposition that business is not a property or pecuniary right which can be protected by equitable
injunction is utterly without foundation in precedent or reason. The proposition is usually linked with one to make the secondary
boycott lawful. Such a proposition is at variance with the American instinct, and will find no support, in my judgment, when
submitted to the American people. The secondary boycott is an instrument of tyranny, and ought not to be made legitimate.

The issue of a temporary restraining order without notice has in several instances been abused by its inconsiderate exercise,
and to remedy this the platform upon which I was elected recommends the formulation in a statute of the conditions under which
such a temporary restraining order ought to issue. A statute can and ought to be framed to embody the best modern practice,
and can bring the subject so closely to the attention of the court as to make abuses of the process unlikely in the future.
The American people, if I understand them, insist that the authority of the courts shall be sustained, and are opposed to
any change in the procedure by which the powers of a court may be weakened and the fearless and effective administration of
justice be interfered with.

Having thus reviewed the questions likely to recur during my administration, and having expressed in a summary way the position
which I expect to take in recommendations to Congress and in my conduct as an Executive, I invoke the considerate sympathy
and support of my fellow-citizens and the aid of the Almighty God in the discharge of my responsible duties.

By the end of the 1950s it had become apparent to many observers that the power struggle between East and West had developed
into a stalemate and, in particular, that the lines of demarcation between communism and the Western democracies had been
drawn in Europe and could not be changed without war. The United States had not liberated eastern Europe, nor was there any
real hope that it could; the Soviet Union had not extended its sphere either. The arms race had only increased the danger of any conflict between them; there could be no victory for either side, at least in traditional
senses of the term. In many speeches, notably the following address delivered at the University of Washington on November
16, 1961, President John F. Kennedy emphasized that America did not have unlimited power to control the world. He warned that
those people who sought easy answers, who demanded either peace at any price or total victory, who saw the alternatives as
being either “Red or dead,” were equally wrong and that their solutions would be equally disastrous. The only sane and effective
foreign policy in a nuclear age, he said over and over again, was one that combined willingness to negotiate and to compromise
with a determination to defend basic values.

In 1961 the world relations of this country have become tangled and complex. One of our former allies has become our adversary--and
he has his own adversaries who are not our allies. Heroes are removed from their tombs, history rewritten, the names of cities
changed overnight.

We increase our arms at a heavy cost, primarily to make certain that we will not have to use them. We must face up to the
chance of war if we are to maintain the peace. We must work with certain countries lacking in freedom in order to strengthen
the cause of freedom. We find some who call themselves neutrals who are our friends and sympathetic to us, and others who
call themselves neutral who are unremittingly hostile to us. And as the most powerful defender of freedom on earth, we find
ourselves unable to escape the responsibilities of freedom and yet unable to exercise it without restraints imposed by the
very freedoms we seek to protect. We cannot, as a free nation, compete with our adversaries in tactics of terror, assassination,
false promises, counterfeit mobs, and crises.

We cannot, under the scrutiny of a free press and public, tell different stories to different audiences, foreign, domestic,
friendly, and hostile.

We cannot abandon the slow processes of consulting with our allies to match the swift expediences of those who merely dictate
to their satellites. We can neither abandon nor control the international organization in which we now cast less than 1 percent
of the vote in the General Assembly. We possess weapons of tremendous power, but they are least effective in combating the
weapons most often used by freedom's foes: subversion, infiltration, guerrilla warfare, and civil disorder. We send arms to
other peoples--just as we can send them the ideals of democracy in which we believe--but we cannot send them the will to use
those arms or to abide by those ideals.

And while we believe not only in the force of arms but in the force of right and reason, we have learned that reason does
not always appeal to unreasonable men, that it is not always true that "a soft answer turneth away wrath," and that right
does not always make might.

In short we must face problems which do not lend themselves to easy or quick or permanent solutions. And we must face the
fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient, that we are only 6 percent of the world's population, that
we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity,
and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.

These burdens and frustrations are accepted by most Americans with maturity and understanding. They may long for the days
when war meant charging up San Juan Hill, or when our isolation was guarded by two oceans, or when the atomic bomb was ours
alone, or when much of the industrialized world depended upon our resources and our aid. But they now know that those days
are gone and that gone with them are the old policies and the old complacencies. And they know, too, that we must make the
best of our new problems and our new opportunities, whatever the risk and the cost.

But there are others who cannot bear the burden of a long twilight struggle. They lack confidence in our long-run capacity
to survive and succeed. Hating communism, yet they see communism in the long run, perhaps, as the wave of the future. And
they want some quick and easy and final and cheap solution--now.

There are two groups of these frustrated citizens, far apart in their views yet very much alike in their approach. On the
one hand are those who urge upon us what I regard to be the pathway of surrender--appeasing our enemies, compromising our
commitments, purchasing peace at any price, disavowing our arms, our friends, our obligations. If their view had prevailed
the world of free choice would be smaller today.

On the other hand are those who urge upon us what I regard to be the pathway of war: equating negotiations with appeasement
and substituting rigidity for firmness. If their view had prevailed, we would be at war today, and in more than one place.

It is a curious fact that each of these extreme opposites resembles the other. Each believes that we have only two choices:
appeasement or war, suicide or surrender, humiliation or holocaust, to be either Red or dead. Each side sees only "hard" and
"soft" nations, hard and soft policies, hard and soft men. Each believes that any departure from its own course inevitably
leads to the other: one group believes that any peaceful solution means appeasement; the other believes that any arms buildup
means war. One group regards everyone else as warmongers; the other regards everyone else as appeasers. Neither side admits
its path will lead to disaster, but neither can tell us how or where to draw the line once we descend the slippery slopes
of appeasement or constant intervention.

In short, while both extremes profess to be the true realists of our time, neither could be more unrealistic. While both claim
to be doing the nation a service, they could do it no greater disservice. For this kind of talk and easy solution to difficult
problems, if believed, could inspire a lack of confidence among our people when they must all--above all else--be united in
recognizing the long and difficult days that lie ahead. It could inspire uncertainty among our allies when above all else
they must be confident in us. And even more dangerously, it could, if believed, inspire doubt among our adversaries when they
must above all be convinced that we will defend our vital interests.

The essential fact that both of these groups fail to grasp is that diplomacy and defense are not substitutes for one another.
Either alone would fail. A willingness to resist force, unaccompanied by a willingness to talk, could provoke belligerence,
while a willingness to talk, unaccompanied by a willingness to resist force, could invite disaster.

But as long as we know what comprises our vital interests and our long-range goals, we have nothing to fear from negotiations
at the appropriate time and nothing to gain by refusing to play a part in them. At a time when a single clash could escalate
overnight into a holocaust of mushroom clouds, a great power does not prove its firmness by leaving the task of exploring
the other's intentions to sentries or those without full responsibility. Nor can ultimate weapons rightfully be employed,
or the ultimate sacrifice rightfully demanded of our citizens, until every reasonable solution has been explored. "How many
wars," Winston Churchill has written, "have been averted by patience and persisting goodwill!...How many wars have been precipitated
by firebrands!"

If vital interests under duress can be preserved by peaceful means, negotiations will find that out. If our adversary will
accept nothing less than a concession of our rights, negotiations will find that out. And if negotiations are to take place,
this nation cannot abdicate to its adversaries the task of choosing the forum and the framework and the time.

For there are carefully defined limits within which any serious negotiations must take place. With respect to any future talks
on Germany and Berlin, for example, we cannot, on the one hand, confine our proposals to a list of concessions we are willing
to make, nor can we, on the other hand, advance any proposals which compromise the security of free Germans and West Berliners
or endanger their ties with the West.

No one should be under the illusion that negotiations for the sake of negotiations always advance the cause of peace. If for
lack of preparation they break up in bitterness, the prospects of peace have been endangered. If they are made a forum for
propaganda or a cover for aggression, the processes of peace have been abused.

But it is a test of our national maturity to accept the fact that negotiations are not a contest spelling victory or defeat.
They may succeed; they may fail. They are likely to be successful only if both sides reach an agreement which both regard
as preferable to the status quo--an agreement in which each side can consider its own situation can be improved. And this
is most difficult to obtain.

But, while we shall negotiate freely, we shall not negotiate freedom. Our answer to the classic question of Patrick Henry
is still "No." Life is not so dear and peace is not so precious "...as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery."
And that is our answer even though, for the first time since the ancient battles between Greek city-states, war entails the
threat of total annihilation, of everything we know, of society itself. For to save mankind's future freedom we must face
up to any risk that is necessary. We will always seek peace--but we will never surrender.

In short, we are neither "warmongers" nor "appeasers," neither "hard" nor "soft." We are Americans, determined to defend the
frontiers of freedom by an honorable peace if peace is possible, but by arms if arms are used against us. And if we are to
move forward in that spirit, we shall need all the calm and thoughtful citizens that this great university can produce, all
the light they can shed, all the wisdom they can bring to bear.

It is customary, both here and around the world, to regard life in the United States as easy. Our advantages are many. But
more than any other people on earth, we bear burdens and accept risks unprecedented in their size and their duration, not
for ourselves alone but for all who wish to be free. No other generation of free men in any country has ever faced so many
and such difficult challenges--not even those who lived in the days when this university was founded in 1861.

This nation was then torn by war. This territory had only the simplest elements of civilization. And this city had barely
begun to function. But a university was one of their earliest thoughts, and they summed it up in the motto that they adopted:
"Let there be light." What more can be said today regarding all the dark and tangled problems we face than: Let there be light.

Source: Department of State Bulletin, December 4, 1961: "Diplomacy and Defense: A Test of National Maturity."

In compliance with an usage coeval with the existence of our Federal Constitution, and sanctioned by the example of my predecessors in the career upon which I am about to enter, I appear, my fellow-citizens,
in your presence and in that of Heaven to bind myself by the solemnities of religious obligation to the faithful performance
of the duties allotted to me in the station to which I have been called.

In unfolding to my countrymen the principles by which I shall be governed in the fulfillment of those duties my first resort
will be to that Constitution which I shall swear to the best of my ability to preserve, protect, and defend. That revered
instrument enumerates the powers and prescribes the duties of the Executive Magistrate, and in its first words declares the
purposes to which these and the whole action of the Government instituted by it should be invariably and sacredly devoted-to
form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to the people of this Union in their successive generations. Since the adoption
of this social compact one of these generations has passed away. It is the work of our forefathers. Administered by some of
the most eminent men who contributed to its formation, through a most eventful period in the annals of the world, and through
all the vicissitudes of peace and war incidental to the condition of associated man, it has not disappointed the hopes and
aspirations of those illustrious benefactors of their age and nation. It has promoted the lasting welfare of that country
so dear to us all; it has to an extent far beyond the ordinary lot of humanity secured the freedom and happiness of this people.
We now receive it as a precious inheritance from those to whom we are indebted for its establishment, doubly bound by the
examples which they have left us and by the blessings which we have enjoyed as the fruits of their labors to transmit the
same unimpaired to the succeeding generation.

In the compass of thirty-six years since this great national covenant was instituted a body of laws enacted under its authority
and in conformity with its provisions has unfolded its powers and carried into practical operation its effective energies.
Subordinate departments have distributed the executive functions in their various relations to foreign affairs, to the revenue
and expenditures, and to the military force of the Union by land and sea. A coordinate department of the judiciary has expounded
the Constitution and the laws, settling in harmonious coincidence with the legislative will numerous weighty questions of
construction which the imperfection of human language had rendered unavoidable. The year of jubilee since the first formation
of our Union has just elapsed; that of the declaration of our independence is at hand. The consummation of both was effected
by this Constitution.

Since that period a population of four millions has multiplied to twelve. A territory bounded by the Mississippi has been
extended from sea to sea. New States have been admitted to the Union in numbers nearly equal to those of the first Confederation.
Treaties of peace, amity, and commerce have been concluded with the principal dominions of the earth. The people of other
nations, inhabitants of regions acquired not by conquest, but by compact, have been united with us in the participation of
our rights and duties, of our burdens and blessings. The forest has fallen by the ax of our woodsmen; the soil has been made
to teem by the tillage of our farmers; our commerce has whitened every ocean. The dominion of man over physical nature has
been extended by the invention of our artists. Liberty and law have marched hand in hand. All the purposes of human association
have been accomplished as effectively as under any other government on the globe, and at a cost little exceeding in a whole
generation the expenditure of other nations in a single year.

Such is the unexaggerated picture of our condition under a Constitution founded upon the republican principle of equal rights.
To admit that this picture has its shades is but to say that it is still the condition of men upon earth. From evil-physical,
moral, and political-it is not our claim to be exempt. We have suffered sometimes by the visitation of Heaven through disease;
often by the wrongs and injustice of other nations, even to the extremities of war; and, lastly, by dissensions among ourselves-dissensions
perhaps inseparable from the enjoyment of freedom, but which have more than once appeared to threaten the dissolution of the
Union, and with it the overthrow of all the enjoyments of our present lot and all our earthly hopes of the future. The causes
of these dissensions have been various, founded upon differences of speculation in the theory of republican government; upon
conflicting views of policy in our relations with foreign nations; upon jealousies of partial and sectional interests, aggravated
by prejudices and prepossessions which strangers to each other are ever apt to entertain.

It is a source of gratification and of encouragement to me to observe that the great result of this experiment upon the theory
of human rights has at the close of that generation by which it was formed been crowned with success equal to the most sanguine
expectations of its founders. Union, justice, tranquillity, the common defense, the general welfare, and the blessings of
liberty-all have been promoted by the Government under which we have lived. Standing at this point of time, looking back to
that generation which has gone by and forward to that which is advancing, we may at once indulge in grateful exultation and
in cheering hope. From the experience of the past we derive instructive lessons for the future. Of the two great political
parties which have divided the opinions and feelings of our country, the candid and the just will now admit that both have
contributed splendid talents, spotless integrity, ardent patriotism, and disinterested sacrifices to the formation and administration
of this Government, and that both have required a liberal indulgence for a portion of human infirmity and error. The revolutionary
wars of Europe, commencing precisely at the moment when the Government of the United States first went into operation under
this Constitution, excited a collision of sentiments and of sympathies which kindled all the passions and imbittered the conflict
of parties till the nation was involved in war and the Union was shaken to its center. This time of trial embraced a period
of five and twenty years, during which the policy of the Union in its relations with Europe constituted the principal basis
of our political divisions and the most arduous part of the action of our Federal Government. With the catastrophe in which
the wars of the French Revolution terminated, and our own subsequent peace with Great Britain, this baneful weed of party
strife was uprooted. From that time no difference of principle, connected either with the theory of government or with our
intercourse with foreign nations, has existed or been called forth in force sufficient to sustain a continued combination
of parties or to give more than wholesome animation to public sentiment or legislative debate. Our political creed is, without
a dissenting voice that can be heard, that the will of the people is the source and the happiness of the people the end of
all legitimate government upon earth; that the best security for the beneficence and the best guaranty against the abuse of
power consists in the freedom, the purity, and the frequency of popular elections; that the General Government of the Union
and the separate governments of the States are all sovereignties of limited powers, fellow-servants of the same masters, uncontrolled
within their respective spheres, uncontrollable by encroachments upon each other; that the firmest security of peace is the
preparation during peace of the defenses of war; that a rigorous economy and accountability of public expenditures should
guard against the aggravation and alleviate when possible the burden of taxation; that the military should be kept in strict
subordination to the civil power; that the freedom of the press and of religious opinion should be inviolate; that the policy
of our country is peace and the ark of our salvation union are articles of faith upon which we are all now agreed. If there
have been those who doubted whether a confederated representative democracy were a government competent to the wise and orderly
management of the common concerns of a mighty nation, those doubts have been dispelled; if there have been projects of partial
confederacies to be erected upon the ruins of the Union, they have been scattered to the winds; if there have been dangerous
attachments to one foreign nation and antipathies against another, they have been extinguished. Ten years of peace, at home
and abroad, have assuaged the animosities of political contention and blended into harmony the most discordant elements of
public opinion. There still remains one effort of magnanimity, one sacrifice of prejudice and passion, to be made by the individuals
throughout the nation who have heretofore followed the standards of political party. It is that of discarding every remnant
of rancor against each other, of embracing as countrymen and friends, and of yielding to talents and virtue alone that confidence
which in times of contention for principle was bestowed only upon those who bore the badge of party communion.

The collisions of party spirit which originate in speculative opinions or in different views of administrative policy are
in their nature transitory. Those which are founded on geographical divisions, adverse interests of soil, climate, and modes
of domestic life are more permanent, and therefore, perhaps, more dangerous. It is this which gives inestimable value to the
character of our Government, at once federal and national. It holds out to us a perpetual admonition to preserve alike and
with equal anxiety the rights of each individual State in its own government and the rights of the whole nation in that of
the Union. Whatsoever is of domestic concernment, unconnected with the other members of the Union or with foreign lands, belongs
exclusively to the administration of the State governments. Whatsoever directly involves the rights and interests of the federative
fraternity or of foreign powers is of the resort of this General Government. The duties of both are obvious in the general
principle, though sometimes perplexed with difficulties in the detail. To respect the rights of the State governments is the
inviolable duty of that of the Union; the government of every State will feel its own obligation to respect and preserve the
rights of the whole. The prejudices everywhere too commonly entertained against distant strangers are worn away, and the jealousies
of jarring interests are allayed by the composition and functions of the great national councils annually assembled from all
quarters of the Union at this place. Here the distinguished men from every section of our country, while meeting to deliberate
upon the great interests of those by whom they are deputed, learn to estimate the talents and do justice to the virtues of
each other. The harmony of the nation is promoted and the whole Union is knit together by the sentiments of mutual respect,
the habits of social intercourse, and the ties of personal friendship formed between the representatives of its several parts
in the performance of their service at this metropolis.

Passing from this general review of the purposes and injunctions of the Federal Constitution and their results as indicating
the first traces of the path of duty in the discharge of my public trust, I turn to the Administration of my immediate predecessor
as the second. It has passed away in a period of profound peace, how much to the satisfaction of our country and to the honor
of our country's name is known to you all. The great features of its policy, in general concurrence with the will of the Legislature,
have been to cherish peace while preparing for defensive war; to yield exact justice to other nations and maintain the rights
of our own; to cherish the principles of freedom and of equal rights wherever they were proclaimed; to discharge with all
possible promptitude the national debt; to reduce within the narrowest limits of efficiency the military force; to improve
the organization and discipline of the Army; to provide and sustain a school of military science; to extend equal protection
to all the great interests of the nation; to promote the civilization of the Indian tribes, and to proceed in the great system
of internal improvements within the limits of the constitutional power of the Union. Under the pledge of these promises, made
by that eminent citizen at the time of his first induction to this office, in his career of eight years the internal taxes
have been repealed; sixty millions of the public debt have been discharged; provision has been made for the comfort and relief
of the aged and indigent among the surviving warriors of the Revolution; the regular armed force has been reduced and its
constitution revised and perfected; the accountability for the expenditure of public moneys has been made more effective;
the Floridas have been peaceably acquired, and our boundary has been extended to the Pacific Ocean; the independence of the
southern nations of this hemisphere has been recognized, and recommended by example and by counsel to the potentates of Europe;
progress has been made in the defense of the country by fortifications and the increase of the Navy, toward the effectual
suppression of the African traffic in slaves; in alluring the aboriginal hunters of our land to the cultivation of the soil
and of the mind, in exploring the interior regions of the Union, and in preparing by scientific researches and surveys for
the further application of our national resources to the internal improvement of our country.

In this brief outline of the promise and performance of my immediate predecessor the line of duty for his successor is clearly
delineated. To pursue to their consummation those purposes of improvement in our common condition instituted or recommended
by him will embrace the whole sphere of my obligations. To the topic of internal improvement, emphatically urged by him at
his inauguration, I recur with peculiar satisfaction. It is that from which I am convinced that the unborn millions of our
posterity who are in future ages to people this continent will derive their most fervent gratitude to the founders of the
Union; that in which the beneficent action of its Government will be most deeply felt and acknowledged. The magnificence and
splendor of their public works are among the imperishable glories of the ancient republics. The roads and aqueducts of Rome
have been the admiration of all after ages, and have survived thousands of years after all her conquests have been swallowed
up in despotism or become the spoil of barbarians. Some diversity of opinion has prevailed with regard to the powers of Congress
for legislation upon objects of this nature. The most respectful deference is due to doubts originating in pure patriotism
and sustained by venerated authority. But nearly twenty years have passed since the construction of the first national road
was commenced. The authority for its construction was then unquestioned. To how many thousands of our countrymen has it proved
a benefit? To what single individual has it ever proved an injury? Repeated, liberal, and candid discussions in the Legislature
have conciliated the sentiments and approximated the opinions of enlightened minds upon the question of constitutional power.
I can not but hope that by the same process of friendly, patient, and persevering deliberation all constitutional objections
will ultimately be removed. The extent and limitation of the powers of the General Government in relation to this transcendently
important interest will be settled and acknowledged to the common satisfaction of all, and every speculative scruple will
be solved by a practical public blessing.

Fellow-citizens, you are acquainted with the peculiar circumstances of the recent election, which have resulted in affording
me the opportunity of addressing you at this time. You have heard the exposition of the principles which will direct me in
the fulfillment of the high and solemn trust imposed upon me in this station. Less possessed of your confidence in advance
than any of my predecessors, I am deeply conscious of the prospect that I shall stand more and oftener in need of your indulgence.
Intentions upright and pure, a heart devoted to the welfare of our country, and the unceasing application of all the faculties
allotted to me to her service are all the pledges that I can give for the faithful performance of the arduous duties I am
to undertake. To the guidance of the legislative councils, to the assistance of the executive and subordinate departments,
to the friendly cooperation of the respective State governments, to the candid and liberal support of the people so far as
it may be deserved by honest industry and zeal, I shall look for whatever success may attend my public service; and knowing
that "except the Lord keep the city the watchman waketh but in vain," with fervent supplications for His favor, to His overruling
providence I commit with humble but fearless confidence my own fate and the future destinies of my country.

During the critical four months that intervened between Abraham Lincoln's election in November 1860 and his inauguration in
March 1861, President James Buchanan, a Democrat, was faced with the problem of secession. The Southerners in his cabinet
were creating confusion and dissension. The secretary of war, a Virginia slaveholder, ordered arms and ammunition transferred
from Northern arsenals to the South. In his last annual message to Congress on December 3, 1860, the president did not take
a strong stand in asserting federal authority because Jeremiah S. Black, the attorney general, advised him that a state could
not be legally coerced by the federal government. Two weeks after the message was delivered, South Carolina seceded from the
Union.

Fellow Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:

Throughout the year since our last meeting the country has been eminently prosperous in all its material interests. The general
health has been excellent, our harvests have been abundant, and plenty smiles throughout the land. Our commerce and manufactures
have been prosecuted with energy and industry, and have yielded fair and ample returns. In short, no nation in the tide of
time has ever presented a spectacle of greater material prosperity than we have done until within a very recent period.

Why is it, then, that discontent now so extensively prevails, and the union of the states, which is the source of all these
blessings, is threatened with destruction?

The long continued and intemperate interference of the Northern people with the question of slavery in the Southern states
has at length produced its natural effects. The different sections of the Union are now arrayed against each other, and the
time has arrived, so much dreaded by the father of his country, when hostile geographical parties have been formed.

I have long foreseen and often forewarned my countrymen of the now impending danger. This does not proceed solely from the
claim on the part of Congress or the territorial legislatures to exclude slavery from the territories, nor from the efforts
of different states to defeat the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law. All or any of these evils might have been endured by
the South without danger to the Union (as others have been) in the hope that time and reflection might apply the remedy. The
immediate peril arises not so much from these causes as from the fact that the incessant and violent agitation of the slavery
question throughout the North for the last quarter of a century has at length produced its malign influence on the slaves
and inspired them with vague notions of freedom.

Hence a sense of security no longer exists around the family altar. This feeling of peace at home has given place to apprehensions
of servile insurrections. Many a matron throughout the South retires at night in dread of what may befall herself and children
before the morning. Should this apprehension of domestic danger, whether real or imaginary, extend and intensify itself until
it shall pervade the masses of the Southern people, then disunion will become inevitable.

Self-preservation is the first law of nature and has been implanted in the heart of man by his Creator for the wisest purpose;
and no political union, however fraught with blessings and benefits in all other respects, can long continue if the necessary
consequence be to render the homes and firesides of nearly half the parties to it habitually and hopelessly insecure. Sooner
or later the bonds of such a union must be severed. It is my conviction that this fatal period has not yet arrived, and my
prayer to God is that He would preserve the Constitution and the Union throughout all generations.

But let us take warning in time and remove the cause of danger. It cannot be denied that for five-and-twenty years the agitation
at the North against slavery has been incessant. In 1835 pictorial handbills and inflammatory appeals were circulated extensively
throughout the South of a character to excite the passions of the slaves, and, in the language of General Jackson, “to stimulate
them to insurrection and produce all the horrors of a servile war.” This agitation has ever since been continued by the public
press, by the proceedings of state and county conventions, and by Abolition sermons and lectures. The time of Congress has
been occupied in violent speeches on this never-ending subject, and appeals, in pamphlet and other forms, endorsed by distinguished
names, have been sent forth from this central point and spread broadcast over the Union.

How easy would it be for the American people to settle the slavery question forever and to restore peace and harmony to this
distracted country! They, and they alone, can do it. All that is necessary to accomplish the object, and all for which the
slave states have ever contended, is to be let alone and permitted to manage their domestic institutions in their own way.
As sovereign states they, and they alone, are responsible before God and the world for the slavery existing among them. For
this the people of the North are not more responsible and have no more right to interfere than with similar institutions in
Russia or in Brazil.

Upon their good sense and patriotic forbearance I confess I still greatly rely. Without their aid it is beyond the power of
any President, no matter what may be his own political proclivities, to restore peace and harmony among the states. Wisely
limited and restrained as is his power under our Constitution and laws, he alone can accomplish but little for good or for
evil on such a momentous question.

And this brings me to observe that the election of any one of our fellow citizens to the office of President does not of itself
afford just cause for dissolving the Union. This is more especially true if his election has been effected by a mere plurality
and not a majority of the people, and has resulted from transient and temporary causes, which may probably never again occur.
In order to justify a resort to revolutionary resistance, the federal government must be guilty of “a deliberate, palpable,
and dangerous exercise” of powers not granted by the Constitution. The late presidential election, however, has been held
in strict conformity with its express provisions.

How, then, can the result justify a revolution to destroy this very Constitution? Reason, justice, a regard for the Constitution,
all require that we shall wait for some overt and dangerous act on the part of the President-elect before resorting to such
a remedy. It is said, however, that the antecedents of the President-elect have been sufficient to justify the fears of the
South that he will attempt to invade their constitutional rights. But are such apprehensions of contingent danger in the future
sufficient to justify the immediate destruction of the noblest system of government ever devised by mortals? From the very
nature of his office and its high responsibilities, he must necessarily be conservative. The stern duty of administering the
vast and complicated concerns of this government affords in itself a guarantee that he will not attempt any violation of a
clear constitutional right.

After all, he is no more than the chief executive officer of the government. His province is not to make but to execute the
laws. And it is a remarkable fact in our history that, notwithstanding the repeated efforts of the antislavery party, no single
act has ever passed Congress, unless we may possibly except the Missouri Compromise, impairing in the slightest degree the
rights of the South to their property in slaves; and it may also be observed, judging from present indications, that no probability
exists of the passage of such an act by a majority of both houses, either in the present or the next Congress. Surely under
these circumstances we ought to be restrained from present action by the precept of Him who spoke as man never spoke, that
“sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” The day of evil may never come unless we shall rashly bring it upon ourselves.It
is alleged as one cause for immediate secession that the Southern states are denied equal rights with the other states in
the common territories. But by what authority are these denied? Not by Congress, which has never passed, and I believe never
will pass, any act to exclude slavery from these territories; and certainly not by the Supreme Court, which has solemnly decided
that slaves are property, and, like all other property, their owners have a right to take them into the common territories
and hold them under the protection of the Constitution.

So far, then, as Congress is concerned, the objection is not to anything they have already done but to what they may do hereafter.
It will surely be admitted that this apprehension of future danger is no good reason for an immediate dissolution of the Union.
It is true that the territorial legislature of Kansas, on the 23rd of February, 1860, passed in great haste an act over the
veto of the governor declaring that slavery “is and shall be forever prohibited in this territory.” Such an act, however,
plainly violating the rights of property secured by the Constitution, will surely be declared void by the judiciary whenever
it shall be presented in a legal form.

Only three days after my inauguration, the Supreme Court of the United States solemnly adjudged that this power did not exist
in a territorial legislature. Yet such has been the factious temper of the times that the correctness of this decision has
been extensively impugned before the people, and the question has given rise to angry political conflicts throughout the country.
Those who have appealed from this judgment of our highest constitutional tribunal to popular assemblies would, if they could,
invest a territorial legislature with power to annul the sacred rights of property. This power Congress is expressly forbidden
by the federal Constitution to exercise. Every state legislature in the Union is forbidden by its own constitution to exercise
it. It cannot be exercised in any state except by the people in their highest sovereign capacity, when framing or amending
their state constitution.

In like manner, it can only be exercised by the people of a territory represented in a convention of delegates for the purpose
of framing a constitution preparatory to admission as a state into the Union. Then, and not until then, are they invested
with power to decide the question whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. This is an act of sovereign
authority and not of subordinate territorial legislation. Were it otherwise, then, indeed, would the equality of the states
in the territories be destroyed, and the rights of property in slaves would depend, not upon the guarantees of the Constitution
but upon the shifting majorities of an irresponsible territorial legislature. Such a doctrine, from its intrinsic unsoundness,
cannot long influence any considerable portion of our people, much less can it afford a good reason for a dissolution of the
Union.

The most palpable violations of constitutional duty which have yet been committed consist in the acts of different state legislatures
to defeat the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law. It ought to be remembered, however, that for these acts neither Congress
nor any President can justly be held responsible. Having been passed in violation of the federal Constitution, they are therefore
null and void. All the courts, both state and national, before whom the question has arisen, have from the beginning declared
the Fugitive Slave Law to be constitutional. The single exception is that of a state court in Wisconsin; and this has not
only been reversed by the proper appellate tribunal but has met with such universal reprobation that there can be no danger
from it as a precedent.

The validity of this law has been established over and over again by the Supreme Court of the United States with perfect unanimity.
It is founded upon an express provision of the Constitution requiring that fugitive slaves who escape from service in one
state to another shall be “delivered up” to their masters. Without this provision it is a well-known historical fact that
the Constitution itself could never have been adopted by the Convention. In one form or other, under the acts of 1793 and
1850, both being substantially the same, the Fugitive Slave Law has been the law of the land from the days of Washington until
the present moment. Here, then, a clear case is presented in which it will be the duty of the next President, as it has been
my own, to act with vigor in executing this supreme law against the conflicting enactments of state legislatures. Should he
fail in the performance of this high duty, he will then have manifested a disregard of the Constitution and laws, to the great
injury of the people of nearly one-half of the states of the Union.

But are we to presume in advance that he will thus violate his duty? This would be at war with every principle of justice
and of Christian charity. Let us wait for the overt act. The Fugitive Slave Law has been carried into execution in every contested
case since the commencement of the present administration, though often, it is to be regretted, with great loss and inconvenience
to the master and with considerable expense to the government. Let us trust that the state legislatures will repeal their
unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments. Unless this shall be done without unnecessary delay, it is impossible for any human
power to save the Union.

The Southern states, standing on the basis of the Constitution, have a right to demand this act of justice from the states
of the North. Should it be refused, then the Constitution, to which all the states are parties, will have been willfully violated
by one portion of them in a provision essential to the domestic security and happiness of the remainder. In that event the
injured states, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary
resistance to the government of the Union.

I have purposely confined my remarks to revolutionary resistance, because it has been claimed within the last few years that
any state, whenever this shall be its sovereign will and pleasure, may secede from the Union in accordance with the Constitution
and without any violation of the constitutional rights of the other members of the confederacy; that as each became parties
to the Union by the vote of its own people assembled in convention, so any one of them may retire from the Union in a similar
manner by the vote of such a convention.

In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the federal government is a mere
voluntary association of states, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the confederacy
is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the states. In this
manner our thirty-three states may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring
from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a
Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and
blood to establish.

Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the federal Constitution. After it was
framed with the greatest deliberation and care, it was submitted to conventions of the people of the several states for ratification.
Its provisions were discussed at length in these bodies, composed of the first men of the country. Its opponents contended
that it conferred powers upon the federal government dangerous to the rights of the states, while its advocates maintained
that under a fair construction of the instrument there was no foundation for such apprehensions.

In that mighty struggle between the first intellects of this or any other country, it never occurred to any individual, either
among its opponents or advocates, to assert or even to intimate that their efforts were all vain labor, because the moment
that any state felt herself aggrieved she might secede from the Union. What a crushing argument would this have proved against
those who dreaded that the rights of the states would be endangered by the Constitution! The truth is that it was not until
many years after the origin of the federal government that such a proposition was first advanced. It was then met and refuted
by the conclusive arguments of General Jackson, who in his message of the 16th of January, 1833, transmitting the nullifying
ordinance of South Carolina to Congress, employs the following language:

The right of the people of a single state to absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the other states from their
most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, cannot be acknowledged.
Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles upon which the general government is constituted
and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain.

It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution gives countenance to such a theory. It is altogether founded upon
inference, not from any language contained in the instrument itself but from the sovereign character of the several states
by which it was ratified. But is it beyond the power of a state, like an individual, to yield a portion of its sovereign rights
to secure the remainder? In the language of Mr. Madison, who has been called the Father of the Constitution:

It was formed by the states; that is, by the people in each of the states acting in their highest sovereign capacity, and
formed, consequently, by the same authority which formed the state constitutions. . . . Nor is the government of the United
States, created by the Constitution, less a government, in the strict sense of the term, within the sphere of its powers,
than the governments created by the constitutions of the states are within their several spheres. It is, like them, organized
into Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary departments. It operates, like them, directly on persons and things, and, like
them, it has at command a physical force for executing the powers committed to it.

It was intended to be perpetual and not to be annulled at the pleasure of any one of the contracting parties. The old Articles
of Confederation were entitled “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States,” and by the 13th Article
it is expressly declared that “the articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the Union
shall be perpetual.” The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, having express reference to the Articles of Confederation,
recites that it was established “in order to form a more perfect union.” And yet it is contended that this “more perfect union”
does not include the essential attribute of perpetuity.

But that the Union was designed to be perpetual appears conclusively from the nature and extent of the powers conferred by
the Constitution on the federal government. These powers embrace the very highest attributes of national sovereignty. They
place both the sword and the purse under its control. Congress has power to make war and to make peace, to raise and support
armies and navies, and to conclude treaties with foreign governments. It is invested with the power to coin money and to regulate
the value thereof, and to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states. It is not necessary to enumerate
the other high powers which have been conferred upon the federal government. In order to carry the enumerated powers into
effect, Congress possesses the exclusive right to lay and collect duties on imports, and, in common with the states, to lay
and collect all other taxes.

But the Constitution has not only conferred these high powers upon Congress but it has adopted effectual means to restrain
the states from interfering with their exercise. For that purpose it has in strong prohibitory language expressly declared
that:

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills
of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.

Moreover,

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely
necessary for executing its inspection laws.

And if they exceed this amount, the excess shall belong to the United States. And,

No state shall without the consent of Congress lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter
into any agreement or compact with another state or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded or in
such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

In order still further to secure the uninterrupted exercise of these high powers against state interposition, it is provided
that:

This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which
shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state
shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

The solemn sanction of religion has been superadded to the obligations of official duty, and all senators and representatives
of the United States, all members of state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers “both of the United States
and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.”

In order to carry into effect these powers, the Constitution has established a perfect government in all its forms--legislative,
executive, and judicial; and this government to the extent of its powers acts directly upon the individual citizens of every
state, and executes its own decrees by the agency of its own officers. In this respect it differs entirely from the government
under the old Confederation, which was confined to making requisitions on the states in their sovereign character. This left
it in the discretion of each whether to obey or to refuse, and they often declined to comply with such requisitions. It thus
became necessary for the purpose of removing this barrier and “in order to form a more perfect union” to establish a government
which could act directly upon the people and execute its own laws without the intermediate agency of the states. This has
been accomplished by the Constitution of the United States. In short, the government created by the Constitution, and deriving
its authority from the sovereign people of each of the several states, has precisely the same right to exercise its power
over the people of all these states in the enumerated cases that each one of them possesses over subjects not delegated to
the United States, but “reserved to the states respectively or to the people.”

To the extent of the delegated powers the Constitution of the United States is as much a part of the constitution of each
state and is as binding upon its people as though it had been textually inserted therein.

This government, therefore, is a great and powerful government, invested with all the attributes of sovereignty over the special
subjects to which its authority extends. Its framers never intended to implant in its bosom the seeds of its own destruction,
nor were they, at its creation, guilty of the absurdity of providing for its own dissolution. It was not intended by its framers
to be the baseless fabric of a vision, which at the touch of the enchanter would vanish into thin air, but a substantial and
mighty fabric, capable of resisting the slow decay of time and of defying the storms of ages. Indeed, well may the jealous
patriots of that day have indulged fears that a government of such high powers might violate the reserved rights of the states,
and wisely did they adopt the rule of a strict construction of these powers to prevent the danger. But they did not fear,
nor had they any reason to imagine, that the Constitution would ever be so interpreted as to enable any state by her own act,
and without the consent of her sister states, to discharge her people from all or any of their federal obligations.

It may be asked, then--Are the people of the states without redress against the tyranny and oppression of the federal government?
By no means. The right of resistance on the part of the governed against the oppression of their governments cannot be denied.
It exists independently of all constitutions, and has been exercised at all periods of the world's history. Under it, old
governments have been destroyed and new ones have taken their place. It is embodied in strong and express language in our
own Declaration of Independence. But the distinction must ever be observed that this is revolution against an established
government and not a voluntary secession from it by virtue of an inherent constitutional right. In short, let us look the
danger fairly in the face. Secession is neither more nor less than revolution. It may or it may not be a justifiable revolution,
but still it is revolution.

What, in the meantime, is the responsibility and true position of the executive? He is bound by solemn oath, before God and
the country, “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and from this obligation he cannot be absolved by any human
power. But what if the performance of this duty, in whole or in part, has been rendered impracticable by events over which
he could have exercised no control? Such at the present moment is the case throughout the state of South Carolina so far as
the laws of the United States to secure the administration of justice by means of the federal judiciary are concerned. All
the federal officers within its limits through whose agency alone these laws can be carried into execution have already resigned.
We no longer have a district judge, a district attorney, or a marshal in South Carolina. In fact, the whole machinery of the
federal government necessary for the distribution of remedial justice among the people has been demolished, and it would be
difficult, if not impossible, to replace it.

The only acts of Congress on the statute book bearing upon this subject are those of Feb. 28, 1795, and March 3, 1807. These
authorize the President, after he shall have ascertained that the marshal, with his posse comitatus, is unable to execute civil or criminal process in any particular case, to call forth the militia and employ the army and
navy to aid him in performing this service, having first by proclamation commanded the insurgents “to disperse and retire
peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time.” This duty cannot by possibility be performed in a state where
no judicial authority exists to issue process, and where there is no marshal to execute it, and where, even if there were
such an officer, the entire population would constitute one solid combination to resist him.

The bare enumeration of these provisions proves how inadequate they are without further legislation to overcome a united opposition
in a single state, not to speak of other states who may place themselves in a similar attitude. Congress alone has power to
decide whether the present laws can or cannot be amended so as to carry out more effectually the objects of the Constitution.The
same insuperable obstacles do not lie in the way of executing the laws for the collection of the customs. The revenue still
continues to be collected as heretofore at the customhouse in Charleston, and should the collector unfortunately resign a
successor may be appointed to perform this duty.

Then, in regard to the property of the United States in South Carolina. This has been purchased for a fair equivalent, “by
the consent of the legislature of the state,” “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals,” etc., and over these the authority
“to exercise exclusive legislation” has been expressly granted by the Constitution to Congress. It is not believed that any
attempt will be made to expel the United States from this property by force; but if in this I should prove to be mistaken,
the officer in command of the forts has received orders to act strictly on the defensive. In such a contingency the responsibility
for consequences would rightfully rest upon the heads of the assailants.

Apart from the execution of the laws, so far as this may be practicable, the executive has no authority to decide what shall
be the relations between the federal government and South Carolina. He has been invested with no such discretion. He possesses
no power to change the relations heretofore existing between them, much less to acknowledge the independence of that state.
This would be to invest a mere executive officer with the power of recognizing the dissolution of the confederacy among our
thirty-three sovereign states. It bears no resemblance to the recognition of a foreign de facto government, involving no such
responsibility. Any attempt to do this would, on his part, be a naked act of usurpation. It is therefore my duty to submit
to Congress the whole question in all its bearings. The course of events is so rapidly hastening forward that the emergency
may soon arise when you may be called upon to decide the momentous question whether you possess the power by force of arms
to compel a state to remain in the Union. I should feel myself recreant to my duty were I not to express an opinion on this
important subject.

The question fairly stated is: Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a state into submission which
is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the
principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a state. After much serious reflection,
I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the federal
government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers
granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not “necessary and proper for carrying into execution”
any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention
which framed the Constitution.

It appears from the proceedings of that body that on the 31st of May, 1787, the clause “authorizing an exertion of the force
of the whole against a delinquent state” came up for consideration. Mr. Madison opposed it in a brief but powerful speech,
from which I shall extract but a single sentence. He observed:

The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably
be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.

Upon his motion the clause was unanimously postponed and was never, I believe, again presented. Soon afterward, on the 8th
of June, 1787, when incidentally adverting to the subject, he said: “Any government for the United States formed on the supposed
practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the states would prove as visionary and fallacious
as the government of Congress,” evidently meaning the then existing Congress of the old Confederation.

Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a state is at variance with
the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. Suppose such a war should result in the conquest of a state; how are we to
govern it afterward? Shall we hold it as a province and govern it by despotic power? In the nature of things, we could not
by physical force control the will of the people and compel them to elect senators and representatives to Congress and to
perform all the other duties depending upon their own volition and required from the free citizens of a free state as a constituent
member of the confederacy.

But if we possessed this power, would it be wise to exercise it under existing circumstances? The object would doubtless be
to preserve the Union. War would not only present the most effectual means of destroying it but would vanish all hope of its
peaceable reconstruction. Besides, in the fraternal conflict, a vast amount of blood and treasure would be expended, rendering
future reconciliation between the states impossible. In the meantime, who can foretell what would be the sufferings and privations
of the people during its existence?

The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil
war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving
it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force.

But may I be permitted solemnly to invoke my countrymen to pause and deliberate before they determine to destroy this, the
grandest temple which has ever been dedicated to human freedom since the world began? It has been consecrated by the blood
of our fathers, by the glories of the past, and by the hopes of the future. The Union has already made us the most prosperous,
and ere long will, if preserved, render us the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. In every foreign region of the
globe the title of American citizen is held in the highest respect, and when pronounced in a foreign land it causes the hearts
of our countrymen to swell with honest pride. Surely, when we reach the brink of the yawning abyss, we shall recoil with horror
from the last fatal plunge.

By such a dread catastrophe the hopes of the friends of freedom throughout the world would be destroyed, and a long night
of leaden despotism would enshroud the nations. Our example for more than eighty years would not only be lost but it would
be quoted as a conclusive proof that man is unfit for self-government.

It is not every wrong--nay, it is not every grievous wrong--which can justify a resort to such a fearful alternative. This
ought to be the last desperate remedy of a despairing people, after every other constitutional means of conciliation had been
exhausted. We should reflect that under this free government there is an incessant ebb and flow in public opinion. The slavery
question, like everything human, will have its day. I firmly believe that it has reached and passed the culminating point.
But if in the midst of the existing excitement the Union shall perish, the evil may then become irreparable.

Congress can contribute much to avert it by proposing and recommending to the legislatures of the several states the remedy
for existing evils which the Constitution has itself provided for its own preservation. This has been tried at different critical
periods of our history, and always with eminent success. It is to be found in the 5th Article, providing for its own amendment.
Under this article, amendments have been proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and have been “ratified by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the several states,” and have consequently become parts of the Constitution. To this process
the country is indebted for the clause prohibiting Congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion or
abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of petition. To this we are also indebted for the Bill of
Rights, which secures the people against any abuse of power by the federal government. Such were the apprehensions justly
entertained by the friends of state rights at that period as to have rendered it extremely doubtful whether the Constitution
could have long survived without those amendments.Again the Constitution was amended by the same process, after the election
of President Jefferson by the House of Representatives, in February 1803. This amendment was rendered necessary to prevent
a recurrence of the dangers which had seriously threatened the existence of the government during the pendency of that election.
The article for its own amendment was intended to secure the amicable adjustment of conflicting constitutional questions,
like the present, which might arise between the governments of the states and that of the United States. This appears from
contemporaneous history.

In this connection I shall merely call attention to a few sentences in Mr. Madison's justly celebrated report, in 1799, to
the legislature of Virginia. In this he ably and conclusively defended the resolutions of the preceding legislature against
the strictures of several other state legislatures. These were mainly founded upon the protest of the Virginia legislature
against the “Alien and Sedition Acts,” as “palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution.” In pointing out the peaceful
and constitutional remedies--and he referred to none other--to which the states were authorized to resort on such occasions,
he concludes by saying:

The legislatures of the states might have made a direct representation to Congress with a view to obtain a rescinding of the
two offensive acts, or they might have represented to their respective senators in Congress their wish that two-thirds thereof
would propose an explanatory amendment to the Constitution; or two-thirds of themselves, if such had been their option, might
by an application to Congress have obtained a convention for the same object.

This is the very course which I earnestly recommend in order to obtain an “explanatory amendment” of the Constitution on the
subject of slavery. This might originate with Congress or the state legislatures, as may be deemed most advisable to attain
the object. The explanatory amendment might be confined to the final settlement of the true construction of the Constitution
on three special points:

An express recognition of the right of property in slaves in the states where it now exists or may hereafter exist.
The duty of protecting this right in all the common territories throughout their territorial existence, and until they shall
be admitted as states into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitutions may prescribe.
A like recognition of the right of the master to have his slave who has escaped from one state to another restored and “delivered
up” to him, and of the validity of the Fugitive Slave Law enacted for this purpose, together with a declaration that all state
laws impairing or defeating this right are violations of the Constitution, and are consequently null and void. It may be objected
that this construction of the Constitution has already been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States, and what more
ought to be required? The answer is that a very large proportion of the people of the United States still contest the correctness
of this decision, and never will cease from agitation and admit its binding force until clearly established by the people
of the several states in their sovereign character. Such an explanatory amendment would, it is believed, forever terminate
the existing dissensions and restore peace and harmony among the states.

It ought not to be doubted that such an appeal to the arbitrament established by the Constitution itself would be received
with favor by all the states of the confederacy. In any event, it ought to be tried in a spirit of conciliation before any
of these states shall separate themselves from the Union.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, James D. Richardson, ed., Washington, 1896-1899, Vol. V, pp. 626-653.

The will of the American people, expressed through their unsolicited suffrages, calls me before you to pass through the solemnities
preparatory to taking upon myself the duties of President of the United States for another term. For their approbation of
my public conduct through a period which has not been without its difficulties, and for this renewed expression of their confidence
in my good intentions, I am at a loss for terms adequate to the expression of my gratitude. It shall be displayed to the extent
of my humble abilities in continued efforts so to administer the Government as to preserve their liberty and promote their
happiness.

So many events have occurred within the last four years which have necessarily called forth-sometimes under circumstances
the most delicate and painful-my views of the principles and policy which ought to be pursued by the General Government that
I need on this occasion but allude to a few leading considerations connected with some of them.

The foreign policy adopted by our Government soon after the formation of our present Constitution, and very generally pursued
by successive Administrations, has been crowned with almost complete success, and has elevated our character among the nations
of the earth. To do justice to all and to submit to wrong from none has been during my Administration its governing maxim,
and so happy have been its results that we are not only at peace with all the world, but have few causes of controversy, and
those of minor importance, remaining unadjusted.

In the domestic policy of this Government there are two objects which especially deserve the attention of the people and their
representatives, and which have been and will continue to be the subjects of my increasing solicitude. They are the preservation
of the rights of the several States and the integrity of the Union.

These great objects are necessarily connected, and can only be attained by an enlightened exercise of the powers of each within
its appropriate sphere in conformity with the public will constitutionally expressed. To this end it becomes the duty of all
to yield a ready and patriotic submission to the laws constitutionally enacted, and thereby promote and strengthen a proper
confidence in those institutions of the several States and of the United States which the people themselves have ordained
for their own government.

My experience in public concerns and the observation of a life somewhat advanced confirm the opinions long since imbibed by
me, that the destruction of our State governments or the annihilation of their control over the local concerns of the people
would lead directly to revolution and anarchy, and finally to despotism and military domination. In proportion, therefore,
as the General Government encroaches upon the rights of the States, in the same proportion does it impair its own power and
detract from its ability to fulfill the purposes of its creation. Solemnly impressed with these considerations, my countrymen
will ever find me ready to exercise my constitutional powers in arresting measures which may directly or indirectly encroach
upon the rights of the States or tend to consolidate all political power in the General Government. But of equal, and, indeed,
of incalculable, importance is the union of these States, and the sacred duty of all to contribute to its preservation by
a liberal support of the General Government in the exercise of its just powers. You have been wisely admonished to "accustom
yourselves to think and speak of the Union as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity, watching for its preservation
with jealous anxiety, discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly
frowning upon the first dawning of any attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred
ties which now link together the various parts." Without union our independence and liberty would never have been achieved;
without union they never can be maintained. Divided into twenty-four, or even a smaller number, of separate communities, we
shall see our internal trade burdened with numberless restraints and exactions; communication between distant points and sections
obstructed or cut off; our sons made soldiers to deluge with blood the fields they now till in peace; the mass of our people
borne down and impoverished by taxes to support armies and navies, and military leaders at the head of their victorious legions
becoming our lawgivers and judges. The loss of liberty, of all good government, of peace, plenty, and happiness, must inevitably
follow a dissolution of the Union. In supporting it, therefore, we support all that is dear to the freeman and the philanthropist.

The time at which I stand before you is full of interest. The eyes of all nations are fixed on our Republic. The event of
the existing crisis will be decisive in the opinion of mankind of the practicability of our federal system of government.
Great is the stake placed in our hands; great is the responsibility which must rest upon the people of the United States.
Let us realize the importance of the attitude in which we stand before the world. Let us exercise forbearance and firmness.
Let us extricate our country from the dangers which surround it and learn wisdom from the lessons they inculcate.

Deeply impressed with the truth of these observations, and under the obligation of that solemn oath which I am about to take,
I shall continue to exert all my faculties to maintain the just powers of the Constitution and to transmit unimpaired to posterity
the blessings of our Federal Union. At the same time, it will be my aim to inculcate by my official acts the necessity of
exercising by the General Government those powers only that are clearly delegated; to encourage simplicity and economy in
the expenditures of the Government; to raise no more money from the people than may be requisite for these objects, and in
a manner that will best promote the interests of all classes of the community and of all portions of the Union. Constantly
bearing in mind that in entering into society "individuals must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest," it will
be my desire so to discharge my duties as to foster with our brethren in all parts of the country a spirit of liberal concession
and compromise, and, by reconciling our fellow-citizens to those partial sacrifices which they must unavoidably make for the
preservation of a greater good, to recommend our invaluable Government and Union to the confidence and affections of the American
people.

Finally, it is my most fervent prayer to that Almighty Being before whom I now stand, and who has kept us in His hands from
the infancy of our Republic to the present day, that He will so overrule all my intentions and actions and inspire the hearts
of my fellow-citizens that we may be preserved from dangers of all kinds and continue forever a united and happy people.

Thomas Jefferson believed firmly in the separation of church and state. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, he had warned against the interference of the state in matters of religious belief. "Our rulers can have authority over such
natural rights, only as we have submitted to them," he wrote in 1783. "The rights of conscience we never submitted. . . .
We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god." In the following letter to P. H. Wendover,
written on March 13, 1815, Jefferson examined the other side of the matter declaring that the interference of the church in
affairs of state, under the guise of political sermons, is equally menacing.

Your favor of January 30 was received after long delay on the road, and I have to thank you for the volume of discourses which
you have been so kind as to send me. I have gone over them with great satisfaction, and concur with the able preacher in his
estimate of the character of the belligerents in our late war, and lawfulness of defensive war. I consider the war, with him,
as "made on good advice," that is, for just causes, and its dispensation as providential, inasmuch as it has exercised our
patriotism and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent necessity, has manifested the strong
and the weak parts of our republican institutions and the excellence of a representative democracy compared with the misrule
of kings, has rallied the opinions of mankind to the natural rights of expatriation and of a common property in the ocean,
and raised us to that grade in the scale of nations which the bravery and liberality of our citizen soldiers, by land and
by sea, the wisdom of our institutions, and their observance of justice, entitled us to in the eyes of the world.

All this Mr. McLeod has well proved, and from these sources of argument particularly which belong to his profession. On one
question only I differ from him, and it is that which constitutes the subject of his first discourse, the right of discussing
public affairs in the pulpit. I add the last words, because I admit the right in general conversation and in writing; in which
last form it has been exercised in the valuable book you have now favored me with.

The mass of human concerns, moral and physical, is so vast, the field of knowledge requisite for man to conduct them to the
best advantage is so extensive, that no human being can acquire the whole himself, and much less in that degree necessary
for the instruction of others. It has of necessity, then, been distributed into different departments, each of which, singly,
may give occupation enough to the whole time and attention of a single individual. Thus we have teachers of languages, teachers
of mathematics, of natural philosophy, of chemistry, of medicine, of law, of history, of government, etc. Religion, too, is
a separate department, and happens to be the only one deemed requisite for all men, however high or low.

Collections of men associate together, under the name of congregations, and employ a religious teacher of the particular sect
of opinions of which they happen to be, and contribute to make up a stipend as a compensation for the trouble of delivering
them, at such periods as they agree on, lessons in the religion they profess. If they want instruction in other sciences or
arts, they apply to other instructors; and this is generally the business of early life. But I suppose there is not an instance
of a single congregation which has employed their preacher for the mixed purposes of lecturing them from the pulpit in chemistry,
in medicine, in law, in the science and principles of government, or in anything but religion exclusively. Whenever, therefore,
preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put them off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities,
on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving
their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want,
or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art or science. In choosing our pastor we look to
his religious qualifications, without inquiring into his physical or political dogmas, with which we mean to have nothing
to do. I am aware that arguments may be found which may twist a thread of politics into the cord of religious duties. So may
they for every other branch of human art or science.

Thus, for example, it is a religious duty to obey the laws of our country; the teacher of religion, therefore, must instruct
us in those laws, that we may know how to obey them. It is a religious duty to assist our sick neighbors; the preacher must,
therefore, teach us medicine, that we may do it understandingly. It is a religious duty to preserve our own health; our religious
teacher, then, must tell us what dishes are wholesome, and give us recipes in cookery, that we may learn how to prepare them.
And so, ingenuity, by generalizing more and more, may amalgamate all the branches of science into any one of them, and the
physician who is paid to visit the sick may give a sermon instead of medicine, and the merchant to whom money is sent for
a hat may send a handkerchief instead of it.

But notwithstanding this possible confusion of all sciences into one, common sense draws lines between them sufficiently distinct
for the general purposes of life, and no one is at a loss to understand that a recipe in medicine or cookery, or a demonstration
in geometry is not a lesson in religion. I do not deny that a congregation may, if they please, agree with their preacher
that he shall instruct them in medicine also, or law, or politics. Then, lectures in these, from the pulpit, become not only
a matter of right, but of duty also. But this must be with the consent of every individual; because the association being
voluntary, the mere majority has no right to apply the contributions of the minority to purposes unspecified in the agreement
of the congregation.

I agree, too, that on all other occasions, the preacher has the right, equally with every other citizen, to express his sentiments,
in speaking or writing, on the subjects of medicine, law, politics, etc., his leisure time being his own, and his congregation
not obliged to listen to his conversation or to read his writings; and no one would have regretted more than myself, had any
scruple as to this right withheld from us the valuable discourses which have led to the expression of an opinion as to the
true limits of the right. I feel my portion of indebtedness to the reverend author for the distinguished learning, the logic,
and the eloquence with which he has proved that religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on
which our government has been founded and its rights asserted.

These are my views on this question. They are in opposition to those of the highly respected and able preacher, and are, therefore,
the more doubtingly offered. Difference of opinion leads to inquiry, and inquiry to truth; and that, I am sure, is the ultimate
and sincere object of us both. We both value too much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by our Constitution not to cherish
its exercise even where in opposition to ourselves.

Unaccustomed to reserve or mystery in the expression of my opinions, I have opened myself frankly on a question suggested
by your letter and present. And although I have not the honor of your acquaintance, this mark of attention, and still more
the sentiments of esteem so kindly expressed in your letter, are entitled to a confidence that observations not intended for
the public will not be ushered to their notice, as has happened to me sometimes. Tranquillity, at my age, is the balm of life.
While I know I am safe in the honor and charity of a McLeod, I do not wish to be cast forth to the Marats, the Dantons, and
the Robespierres of the priesthood; I mean the Parishes, the Ogdens, and the Gardiners of Massachusetts.

On November 4, 2008, Democrat Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States, becoming the first African American to win the country"s highest office. Joined by his wife, Michelle, and the couple"s two young daughters, Sasha and Malia, Obama addressed his fans and friends in Chicago"s Grant Park, which
40 years earlier had been the scene of a violent confrontation between city police and demonstrators during the Democratic
National Convention. In front of an estimated 90,000 to 240,000 people who descended upon the park to celebrate his election—a
crowd whose diversity reflected Obama"s appeal across racial, gender, and generational lines—Obama acknowledged the historic
nature of his victory and painted his vision of hope for a country fighting in two wars and facing the worst economic turmoil
since the Great Depression.

Hello, Chicago.

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if
the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It"s the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people
who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be
different, that their voices could be that difference.

It"s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American,
gay, straight, disabled, and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection
of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states.

We are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It"s the answer that led those who"ve been told for so long by so many to be cynical and fearful and doubtful about what we
can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

It"s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment, change
has come to America.

A little bit earlier this evening, I received an extraordinarily gracious call from Sen. McCain.

Sen. McCain fought long and hard in this campaign. And he"s fought even longer and harder for the country that he loves. He
has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine. We are better off for the service rendered by
this brave and selfless leader.

I congratulate him; I congratulate Gov. Palin for all that they"ve achieved. And I look forward to working with them to renew this nation"s promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up
with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on the train home to Delaware, the vice president-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

And I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last 16 years, the rock
of our family, the love of my life, the nation"s next first lady, Michelle Obama.

Sasha and Malia, I love you both more than you can imagine. And you have earned the new puppy that"s coming with us to the
new White House.

And while she"s no longer with us, I know my grandmother"s watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them
tonight. I know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my sister Maya, my sister Alma, all my other brothers and sisters, thank you so much for all the support that you"ve given
me. I am grateful to them.

And to my campaign manager, David Plouffe, the unsung hero of this campaign, who built the best—the best political campaign,
I think, in the history of the United States of America.

To my chief strategist David Axelrod who"s been a partner with me every step of the way.

To the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what
you"ve sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you. It belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn"t start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was
not hatched in the halls of Washington. It began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front
porches of Charleston. It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give $5 and $10
and $20 to the cause.

It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation"s apathy, who left their homes and their
families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep.

It drew strength from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on doors of perfect strangers,
and from the millions of Americans who volunteered and organized and proved that more than two centuries later a government
of the people, by the people, and for the people has not perished from the Earth.

This is your victory.

And I know you didn"t do this just to win an election. And I know you didn"t do it for me.

You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the
challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime—two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis
in a century.

Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan
to risk their lives for us.

There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after the children fall asleep and wonder how they"ll make the mortgage or
pay their doctors" bills or save enough for their child"s college education.

There"s new energy to harness, new jobs to be created, new schools to build, and threats to meet, alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America,
I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.

I promise you, we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won"t agree with every decision or policy I make as president.
And we know the government can"t solve every problem.

But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And,
above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it"s been done in America for 221 years—block
by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night.

This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if
we go back to the way things were.

It can"t happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and
look after not only ourselves but each other.

Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it"s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers.

In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let"s resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship
and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.

Let"s remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House,
a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity.

Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure
of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.

As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained,
it must not break our bonds of affection.

And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need
your help. And I will be your president, too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios
in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership
is at hand.

To those—to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you.
And to all those who have wondered if America"s beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength
of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals:
democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

That"s the true genius of America: that America can change. Our union can be perfected. What we"ve already achieved gives
us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that"s on my mind tonight"s about
a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She"s a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard
in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone
like her couldn"t vote for two reasons—because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she"s seen throughout her century in America—the heartache and the hope; the struggle
and the progress; the times we were told that we can"t, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when women"s voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach
for the ballot. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness
and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told
a people that “We Shall Overcome.” Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.

And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America,
through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change.

Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves—if our
children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what
change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment.

This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote
the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that
while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can"t, we will respond
with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.

Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

The programs of most twentieth-century American Presidents have been given slogan-nicknames, either by the Presidents themselves
or by the press, which prefers short phrases that fit headlines. Thus Theodore Roosevelt had his Square Deal, Woodrow Wilson
his New Freedom, FDR his New Deal, Harry Truman his Fair Deal, JFK his New Frontier; Lyndon Johnson outlined his own program
in a speech at the University of Michigan on May 22, 1964, naming it the Great Society.

I have come today from the turmoil of your Capitol to the tranquility of your campus to speak about the future of our country.
The purpose of protecting the life of our nation and preserving the liberty of our citizens is to pursue the happiness of
our people. Our success in that pursuit is the test of our success as a nation. For a century we labored to settle and to
subdue a continent. For half a century we called upon unbounded invention and untiring industry to create an order of plenty
for all of our people. The challenge of the next half century is whether we have the wisdom to use that wealth to enrich and
elevate our national life and to advance the quality of our American civilization.

Your imagination, your initiative, and your indignation will determine whether we build a society where progress is the servant
of our needs or a society where old values and new visions are buried under unbridled growth. For, in your time, we have the
opportunity to move not only toward the rich society and the powerful society but upward to the Great Society.

The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are
totally committed in our time. But that is just the beginning. The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge
to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents. It is a place where leisure is a welcome chance to build and reflect, not a
feared cause of boredom and restlessness. It is a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the
demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community.

It is a place where man can renew contact with nature. It is a place which honors creation for its own sake and for what it
adds to the understanding of the race. It is a place where men are more concerned with the quality of their goals than the
quantity of their goods. But, most of all, the Great Society is not a safe harbor, a resting place, a final objective, a finished
work; it is a challenge constantly renewed, beckoning us toward a destiny where the meaning of our lives matches the marvelous
products of our labor.

So I want to talk to you today about three places where we begin to build the Great Society -- in our cities, in our countryside,
and in our classrooms. Many of you will live to see the day, perhaps fifty years from now, when there will be 400 million
Americans, four-fifths of them in urban areas. In the remainder of this century, urban population will double, city land will
double, and we will have to build homes, highways, and facilities equal to all those built since this country was first settled.
So, in the next forty years, we must rebuild the entire urban United States.

Aristotle said, "Men come together in cities in order to live, but they remain together in order to live the good life." It
is harder and harder to live the good life in American cities today. The catalog of ills is long: there is the decay of the
centers and the despoiling of the suburbs. There is not enough housing for our people or transportation for our traffic. Open
land is vanishing and old landmarks are violated. Worst of all, expansion is eroding the precious and time-honored values
of community with neighbors and communion with nature. The loss of these values breeds loneliness and boredom and indifference.
Our society will never be great until our cities are great. Today the frontier of imagination and innovation is inside those
cities, and not beyond their borders. New experiments are already going on. It will be the task of your generation to make
the American city a place where future generations will come, not only to live but to live the good life.

I understand that if I stay here tonight I would see that Michigan students are really doing their best to live the good life.
This is the place where the Peace Corps was started. It is inspiring to see how all of you, while you are in this country,
are trying so hard to live at the level of the people.

A second place where we begin to build the Great Society is in our countryside. We have always prided ourselves on being not
only America the strong and America the free but America the beautiful. Today that beauty is in danger. The water we drink,
the food we eat, the very air that we breathe are threatened with pollution. Our parks are overcrowded. Our seashores overburdened.
Green fields and dense forests are disappearing.

A few years ago we were greatly concerned about the Ugly American. Today we must act to prevent an Ugly America. For once
the battle is lost, once our natural splendor is destroyed, it can never be recaptured. And once man can no longer walk with
beauty or wonder at nature, his spirit will wither and his sustenance be wasted.

A third place to build the Great Society is in the classrooms of America. There your children's lives will be shaped. Our
society will not be great until every young mind is set free to scan the farthest reaches of thought and imagination. We are
still far from that goal. Today, 8 million adult Americans, more than the entire population of Michigan, have not finished
five years of school. Nearly 20 million have not finished eight years of school. Nearly 54 million, more than one-quarter
of all America, have not even finished high school.

Each year more than 100,000 high-school graduates, with proved ability, do not enter college because they cannot afford it.
And if we cannot educate today's youth, what will we do in 1970 when elementary-school enrollment will be 5 million greater
than 1960? And high-school enrollment will rise by 5 million? College enrollment will increase by more than 3 million? In
many places, classrooms are overcrowded and curricula are outdated. Most of our qualified teachers are underpaid, and many
of our paid teachers are unqualified. So we must give every child a place to sit and a teacher to learn from. Poverty must
not be a bar to learning, and learning must offer an escape from poverty.

But more classrooms and more teachers are not enough. We must seek an educational system which grows in excellence as it grows
in size. This means better training for our teachers. It means preparing youth to enjoy their hours of leisure as well as
their hours of labor. It means exploring new techniques of teaching, to find new ways to stimulate the love of learning and
the capacity for creation.

These are three of the central issues of the Great Society. While our government has many programs directed at those issues,
I do not pretend that we have the full answer to those problems. But I do promise this: We are going to assemble the best
thought and the broadest knowledge from all over the world to find those answers for America. I intend to establish working
groups to prepare a series of White House conferences and meetings on the cities, on natural beauty, on the quality of education,
and on other emerging challenges. And from these meetings and from this inspiration and from these studies we will begin to
set our course toward the Great Society.

The solution to these problems does not rest on a massive program in Washington, nor can it rely solely on the strained resources
of local authority. They require us to create new concepts of cooperation, a creative federalism, between the national Capitol
and the leaders of local communities.

Woodrow Wilson once wrote: "Every man sent out from his university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time."
Within your lifetime powerful forces, already loosed, will take us toward a way of life beyond the realm of our experience,
almost beyond the bounds of our imagination. For better or for worse, your generation has been appointed by history to deal
with those problems and to lead America toward a new age. You have the chance never before afforded to any people in any age.
You can help build a society where the demands of morality and the needs of the spirit can be realized in the life of the
nation.

So will you join the battle to give every citizen the full equality which God enjoins and the law requires, whatever his belief,
or race, or the color of his skin? Will you join in the battle to give every citizen an escape from the crushing weight of
poverty? Will you join in the battle to make it possible for all nations to live in enduring peace as neighbors and not as
mortal enemies? Will you join in the battle to build the Great Society, to prove that our material progress is only the foundation
on which we will build a richer life of mind and spirit?

There are those timid souls who say this battle cannot be won, that we are condemned to a soulless wealth. I do not agree.
We have the power to shape the civilization that we want. But we need your will, your labor, your hearts if we are to build
that kind of society.

Those who came to this land sought to build more than just a new country. They sought a free world. So I have come here today
to your campus to say that you can make their vision our reality. Let us from this moment begin our work so that in the future
men will look back and say: It was then, after a long and weary way, that man turned the exploits of his genius to the full
enrichment of his life.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, nineteen Middle Eastern terrorists hijacked four American passenger jets and used the planes as guided missiles to attack symbolic targets on the Eastern Seaboard
of the United States. Two planes slammed into the World Trade Center Towers in New York City, causing both towers to collapse.
A third plane crashed into the Pentagon, near Washington, D.C., and a fourth went down in the Pennsylvania countryside when
passengers resisted the hijackers. The devastating series of attacks killed some 3,000 Americans, more than had died in the
Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, 60 years previously. In the hours and days following September 11, American and foreign
intelligence services identified Osama bin Laden, a Saudi millionaire living in exile in Afghanistan, as the mastermind behind
the attacks. On September 20, President George W. Bush spoke before a Joint Session of Congress and outlined America's response
to the events of September 11. In the speech, televised live around the nation and the world and excerpted here, Bush announced
that “Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda (the terrorist network associated with bin Laden), but it does not end there.
It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” Less than three weeks
after Bush's speech, American forces launched a military campaign in Afghanistan to capture bin Laden and overthrow Afghanistan's
Taliban government, which had long aided and abetted bin Laden and other terrorists. Although bin Laden's whereabouts and
fate were unknown at the end of 2001, the American campaign in Afghanistan succeeded in toppling the Taliban from power and
inflicting major damage on bin Laden's terrorist network. With American support, a new pro-Western government was installed
in Afghanistan in early 2002.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tempore, members of Congress, and fellow Americans: In the normal course of events, Presidents
come to this chamber to report on the state of the Union. Tonight, no such report is needed. It has already been delivered
by the American people.

We have seen it in the courage of passengers, who rushed terrorists to save others on the ground--passengers like an exceptional
man named Todd Beamer. And would you please help me to welcome his wife, Lisa Beamer, here tonight. We have seen the state
of our Union in the endurance of rescuers, working past exhaustion. We have seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles,
the giving of blood, the saying of prayers--in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. We have seen the decency of a loving and giving
people who have made the grief of strangers their own. My fellow citizens, for the last nine days, the entire world has seen
for itself the state of our Union--and it is strong. Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom.
Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies,
justice will be done.

I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time. All of America was touched on the evening of the tragedy
to see Republicans and Democrats joined together on the steps of this Capitol, singing “God Bless America.” And you did more
than sing; you acted, by delivering $40 billion to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of our military. Speaker Hastert,
Minority Leader Gephardt, Majority Leader Daschle and Senator Lott, I thank you for your friendship, for your leadership and
for your service to our country.

And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support. America will never forget the sounds
of our National Anthem playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris, and at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate. We will not
forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque
in Cairo. We will not forget moments of silence and days of mourning in Australia and Africa and Latin America. Nor will we
forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own: dozens of Pakistanis; more than 130 Israelis; more than 250
citizens of India; men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico and Japan; and hundreds of British citizens. America has no
truer friend than Great Britain. Once again, we are joined together in a great cause--so honored the British Prime Minister
has crossed an ocean to show his unity of purpose with America. Thank you for coming, friend.

On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars--but for
the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties
of war--but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks--but never before
on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day--and night fell on a different world, a world where
freedom itself is under attack.

Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking: Who attacked our country? The evidence we have gathered all points
to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are the same murderers indicted for
bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and responsible for bombing the USS Cole. Al Qaeda is to terror what the
mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world--and imposing its radical beliefs on people
everywhere. The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast
majority of Muslim clerics--a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands
them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women
and children.

This group and its leader--a person named Osama bin Laden--are linked to many other organizations in different countries,
including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more
than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan,
where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the
world to plot evil and destruction. The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban
regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world.

Afghanistan's people have been brutalized--many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You
can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan
if his beard is not long enough. The United States respects the people of Afghanistan--after all, we are currently its largest
source of humanitarian aid--but we condemn the Taliban regime. It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening
people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime
is committing murder.

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities
all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly
imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every
terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate
authorities. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.
These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the
terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many
millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful,
and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith,
trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends.
Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda,
but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber--a democratically elected government.
Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms--our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote
and assemble and disagree with each other. They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of
vast regions of Asia and Africa. These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With
every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against
us, because we stand in their way.

We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies
of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions--by abandoning every value except the will to
power--they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to
where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.

Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command--every means of diplomacy,
every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of
war--to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network. . . . Our response involves far more than instant retaliation
and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.
It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of
funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue
nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you
are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism
will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Our nation has been put on notice: We are not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect
Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities
affecting homeland security. These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So tonight I announce the creation of
a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me--the Office of Homeland Security. And tonight I also announce a distinguished
American to lead this effort, to strengthen American security: a military veteran, an effective governor, a true patriot,
a trusted friend--Pennsylvania's Tom Ridge. He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard
our country against terrorism, and respond to any attacks that may come.

These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate
it, and destroy it where it grows. Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents to intelligence operatives to the
reservists we have called to active duty. All deserve our thanks, and all have our prayers. And tonight, a few miles from
the damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I've called the Armed Forces to alert, and there is a reason.
The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud.

This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight.
This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom. We ask
every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems
around the world. The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded--with
sympathy and with support. Nations from Latin America, to Asia, to Africa, to Europe, to the Islamic world. Perhaps the NATO
Charter reflects best the attitude of the world: An attack on one is an attack on all. . . .

Americans are asking: What is expected of us? I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have
fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.

I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles,
and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because
of their ethnic background or religious faith. . . .

We will come together to give law enforcement the additional tools it needs to track down terror here at home. We will come
together to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists before they act, and find them before
they strike. We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's economy, and put our people back to work.
Tonight we welcome two leaders who embody the extraordinary spirit of all New Yorkers: Governor George Pataki, and Mayor Rudolph
Giuliani. As a symbol of America's resolve, my administration will work with Congress, and these two leaders, to show the
world that we will rebuild New York City.

After all that has just passed--all the lives taken, and all the possibilities and hopes that died with them--it is natural
to wonder if America's future is one of fear. Some speak of an age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead, and dangers
to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined
and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world.

Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our
moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom--the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of
every time--now depends on us. Our nation--this generation--will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future.
We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not
fail.

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines,
and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened
that day, and to whom it happened. We'll remember the moment the news came--where we were and what we were doing. Some will
remember an image of a fire, or a story of rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.

And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to
save others. It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. This is my reminder of lives that ended,
and a task that does not end.

I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent
in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its
outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between
them.

Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice--assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories
to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America.

Source: “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People,” September 20, 2001, http://www.whitehouse.gov

Presidential advisers spent much of 1934 considering programs for unemployment compensation and old-age benefits--important
planks in the Democratic platform of 1932. Unemployment compensation created numerous problems, largely because of conflict
between advocates of a national plan and proponents of state-operated plans. Old-age insurance, having had no precedent in
state legislation, was generally deemed suitable for a uniform federal program. In the following message to Congress of January
17, 1935, President Roosevelt presented the administration's proposal for a social security act. A bill was finally passed
on August 14. Like most of the New Deal legislation, social security was challenged as unconstitutional, but in May 1937 the
Supreme Court upheld the major provisions of the law.

In addressing you on June 8, 1934, I summarized the main objectives of our American program. Among these was, and is, the
security of the men, women, and children of the nation against certain hazards and vicissitudes of life. This purpose is an
essential part of our task. In my annual message to you I promised to submit a definite program of action. This I do in the
form of a report to me by a Committee on Economic Security, appointed by me for the purpose of surveying the field and of
recommending the basis of legislation.

I am gratified with the work of this committee and of those who have helped it: The Technical Board of Economic Security,
drawn from various departments of the government; the Advisory Council on Economic Security, consisting of informed and public-spirited
private citizens; and a number of other advisory groups, including a Committee on Actuarial Consultants, a Medical Advisory
Board, a Dental Advisory Committee, a Hospital Advisory Committee, a Public Health Advisory Committee, a Child Welfare Committee,
and an Advisory Committee on Employment Relief. All of those who participated in this notable task of planning this major
legislative proposal are ready and willing at any time to consult with and assist in any way the appropriate congressional
committees and members with respect to detailed aspects.

It is my best judgment that this legislation should be brought forward with a minimum of delay. Federal action is necessary
to and conditioned upon the actions of states. Forty-four legislatures are meeting or will meet soon. In order that the necessary
state action may be taken promptly, it is important that the federal government proceed speedily.

The detailed report of the committee sets forth a series of proposals that will appeal to the sound sense of the American
people. It has not attempted the impossible nor has it failed to exercise sound caution and consideration of all of the factors
concerned: the national credit, the rights and responsibilities of states, the capacity of industry to assume financial responsibilities,
and the fundamental necessity of proceeding in a manner that will merit the enthusiastic support of citizens of all sorts.

It is overwhelmingly important to avoid any danger of permanently discrediting the sound and necessary policy of federal legislation
for economic security by attempting to apply it on too ambitious a scale before actual experience has provided guidance for
the permanently safe direction of such efforts. The place of such a fundamental in our future civilization is too precious
to be jeopardized now by extravagant action. It is a sound idea--a sound ideal. Most of the other advanced countries of the
world have already adopted it, and their experience affords the knowledge that social insurance can be made a sound and workable
project.

Three principles should be observed in legislation on this subject. In the first place, the system adopted, except for the
money necessary to initiate it, should be self-sustaining in the sense that funds for the payment of insurance benefits should
not come from the proceeds of general taxation. Second, excepting in old-age insurance, actual management should be left to
the states, subject to standards established by the federal government. Third, sound financial management of the funds and
the reserves and protection of the credit structure of the nation should be assured by retaining federal control over all
funds through trustees in the Treasury of the United States.

At this time, I recommend the following types of legislation looking to economic security:

Third, federal aid to dependent children through grants to states for the support of existing mother's pension systems and
for services for the protection and care of homeless, neglected, dependent, and crippled children.

Fourth, additional federal aid to state and local public-health agencies and the strengthening of the federal Public Health
Service. I am not at this time recommending the adoption of so-called health insurance, although groups representing the medical
profession are cooperating with the federal government in the further study of the subject, and definite progress is being
made.

With respect to unemployment compensation, I have concluded that the most practical proposal is the levy of a uniform federal payroll tax, 90 percent of which should
be allowed as an offset to employers contributing under a compulsory state unemployment compensation act. The purpose of this
is to afford a requirement of a reasonably uniform character for all states cooperating with the federal government and to
promote and encourage the passage of unemployment compensation laws in the states. The 10 percent not thus offset should be
used to cover the costs of federal and state administration of this broad system. Thus, states will largely administer unemployment
compensation, assisted and guided by the federal government.

An unemployment compensation system should be constructed in such a way as to afford every practicable aid and incentive toward
the larger purpose of employment stabilization. This can be helped by the intelligent planning of both public and private
employment. It also can be helped by correlating the system with public employment so that a person who has exhausted his
benefits may be eligible for some form of public work as is recommended in this report. Moreover, in order to encourage the
stabilization of private employment, federal legislation should not foreclose the states from establishing means for inducing
industries to afford an even greater stabilization of employment.

In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles--first, noncontributory
old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance; it is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty
years to come funds will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory
contributory annuities, which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations.
Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age.
It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately
to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

The amount necessary at this time for the initiation of unemployment compensation, old-age security, children's aid, and the
promotion of public health, as outlined in the report of the Committee on Economic Security, is approximately $100 million.

The establishment of sound means toward a greater future economic security of the American people is dictated by a prudent
consideration of the hazards involved in our national life. No one can guarantee this country against the dangers of future
depressions, but we can reduce these dangers. We can eliminate many of the factors that cause economic depressions and we
can provide the means of mitigating their results. This plan for economic security is at once a measure of prevention and
a method of alleviation.

We pay now for the dreadful consequence of economic insecurity--and dearly. This plan presents a more equitable and infinitely
less expensive means of meeting these costs. We cannot afford to neglect the plain duty before us. I strongly recommend action
to attain the objectives sought in this report.

I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and
a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth,
frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my
firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed
efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met
with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again
give that support to leadership in these critical days.

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values
have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious
curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise
lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.

More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little
return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which
our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers
her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very
sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own
stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers
stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit
they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow
their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the
rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the
ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary
profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The
joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will
be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves
and to our fellow men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false
belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal
profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness
of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the
sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.

Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It
can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency
of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize
the use of our natural resources.

Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging
on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land.
The task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products and with this the power to purchase
the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure
of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, State, and local governments act forthwith
on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are
often scattered, uneconomical, and unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation
and of communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be
helped, but it can never be helped merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly.

Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order;
there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other
people's money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.

There are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment,
and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the several States.

Through this program of action we address ourselves to putting our own national house in order and making income balance outgo.
Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are in point of time and necessity secondary to the establishment
of a sound national economy. I favor as a practical policy the putting of first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore
world trade by international economic readjustment, but the emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.

The basic thought that guides these specific means of national recovery is not narrowly nationalistic. It is the insistence,
as a first consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in all parts of the United States-a recognition
of the old and permanently important manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer. It is the way to recovery. It is
the immediate way. It is the strongest assurance that the recovery will endure.

In the field of world policy I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor-the neighbor who resolutely respects
himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others-the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the
sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.

If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each
other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal
army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership
becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes
possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon
us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.

With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined
attack upon our common problems.

Action in this image and to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors.
Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis
and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly
enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced. It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign
wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations.

It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented
task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure
from that normal balance of public procedure.

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world
may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek,
within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency
is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the
one remaining instrument to meet the crisis-broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power
that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

For the trust reposed in me I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.

We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of the national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking
old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of duty by old and young
alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life.

We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they
have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership.
They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.

In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me
in the days to come.

On January 20, 2009, a frigid morning in Washington, D.C., and across much of the country, an African American man, Barack Obama, became the 44th president of the United States. He was only the second man to swear his oath of office on the Bible used
by Abraham Lincoln for that purpose. The Washington Post estimated that 1.8 million people filled the National Mall to witness (the vast majority by means of strategically placed
large-screen televisions) this emotion-filled event, and countless others filled living rooms and other meeting places throughout
the country and, indeed, the world. The event's general air of celebration was tempered with sober evaluation of the nation's
enormous hurdles and hard work ahead.

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne
by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as [for] the generosity and cooperation he
has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and
the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments,
America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained
faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence
and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective
failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered.
Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy
strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence
across our land—a nagging fear that America"s decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or
in a short span of time. But know this, America—they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas,
that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come
to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed
on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue
their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey
has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the fainthearted—for those who prefer leisure
over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk takers, the doers, the makers of things—some
celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity
and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better
life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth
or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive
than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week
or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests
and putting off unpleasant decisions—that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves
off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act—not
only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and
digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology"s
wonders to raise health care"s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our
cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.
All this we can do. All this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions—who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans.
Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve
when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them—that the stale political arguments that have
consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small,
but whether it works—whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage
the public"s dollars will be held to account—to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day—because
only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom
is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation
cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size
of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart—not
out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with
perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the
blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience"s sake. And so to all
the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father
was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity,
and we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the [sic] sturdy
alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as
we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our
cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater
effort—even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people,
and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we'll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear
threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its
defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that
our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and
Hindus—and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have
tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot
help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows
smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe
who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society"s ills on the West—know that your people will judge you on what you can build,
not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you
are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish
starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford
indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world"s resources without regard to effect. For
the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very
hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington
whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit
of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment—a moment that will
define a generation—it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which
this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would
rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter"s courage
to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent"s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends—honesty
and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism—these things are old. These things are
true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths.
What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility—a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties
to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge
that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence—the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed—why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in
celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served
in a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America"s birth, in the
coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned.
The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At the moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt,
the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

“Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the
city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it).”

America: in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope
and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children"s children
that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed
on the horizon and God"s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper
for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence
which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am
now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any
instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject
to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.

James Madison wrote a number of short political essays reflecting his concern for the new government he had helped to create
and for the direction it would take in the future. The sovereign power of the United States resided in its people, he felt,
and only through an enlightened public could the government seek guidance for its tasks. Madison's awareness of the unpredictability
of the public mind is reflected in the following essay, which first appeared in the National Gazette on December 19, 1791, long before the public opinion polls of today had come into existence.

Public opinion sets bounds to every government, and is the real sovereign in every free one.

As there are cases where the public opinion must be obeyed by the government, so there are cases where, not being fixed, it
may be influenced by the government. This distinction, if kept in view, would prevent or decide many debates on the respect
due from the government to the sentiments of the people.

In proportion as government is influenced by opinion, it must be so by whatever influences opinion. This decides the question
concerning a constitutional Declaration of Rights, which requires an influence on government by becoming a part of public
opinion.

The larger a country, the less easy for its real opinion to be ascertained, and the less difficult to be counterfeited; when
ascertained or presumed, the more respectable it is in the eyes of individuals. This is favorable to the authority of government.
For the same reason, the more extensive a country, the more insignificant is each individual in his own eyes. This may be
unfavorable to liberty.

Whatever facilitates a general intercourse of sentiments, as good roads, domestic commerce, a free press, and particularly
a circulation of newspapers through the entire body of the people, and representatives going from and returning among every
part of them, is equivalent to a contraction of territorial limits, and is favorable to liberty, where these may be too extensive.

Source: Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, Fourth President of the United States: "Public Opinion," vol. 4, 1865.

Under Providence I have been called a second time to act as Executive over this great nation. It has been my endeavor in the
past to maintain all the laws, and, so far as lay in my power, to act for the best interests of the whole people. My best
efforts will be given in the same direction in the future, aided, I trust, by my four years' experience in the office.

When my first term of the office of Chief Executive began, the country had not recovered from the effects of a great internal
revolution, and three of the former States of the Union had not been restored to their Federal relations.

It seemed to me wise that no new questions should be raised so long as that condition of affairs existed. Therefore the past
four years, so far as I could control events, have been consumed in the effort to restore harmony, public credit, commerce,
and all the arts of peace and progress. It is my firm conviction that the civilized world is tending toward republicanism,
or government by the people through their chosen representatives, and that our own great Republic is destined to be the guiding
star to all others.

Under our Republic we support an army less than that of any European power of any standing and a navy less than that of either
of at least five of them. There could be no extension of territory on the continent which would call for an increase of this
force, but rather might such extension enable us to diminish it.

The theory of government changes with general progress. Now that the telegraph is made available for communicating thought,
together with rapid transit by steam, all parts of a continent are made contiguous for all purposes of government, and communication
between the extreme limits of the country made easier than it was throughout the old thirteen States at the beginning of our
national existence.

The effects of the late civil strife have been to free the slave and make him a citizen. Yet he is not possessed of the civil rights which citizenship should carry with it. This is wrong,
and should be corrected. To this correction I stand committed, so far as Executive influence can avail.

Social equality is not a subject to be legislated upon, nor shall I ask that anything be done to advance the social status
of the colored man, except to give him a fair chance to develop what there is good in him, give him access to the schools,
and when he travels let him feel assured that his conduct will regulate the treatment and fare he will receive.

The States lately at war with the General Government are now happily rehabilitated, and no Executive control is exercised
in any one of them that would not be exercised in any other State under like circumstances.

In the first year of the past Administration the proposition came up for the admission of Santo Domingo as a Territory of
the Union. It was not a question of my seeking, but was a proposition from the people of Santo Domingo, and which I entertained.
I believe now, as I did then, that it was for the best interest of this country, for the people of Santo Domingo, and all
concerned that the proposition should be received favorably. It was, however, rejected constitutionally, and therefore the
subject was never brought up again by me.

In future, while I hold my present office, the subject of acquisition of territory must have the support of the people before
I will recommend any proposition looking to such acquisition. I say here, however, that I do not share in the apprehension
held by many as to the danger of governments becoming weakened and destroyed by reason of their extension of territory. Commerce,
education, and rapid transit of thought and matter by telegraph and steam have changed all this. Rather do I believe that
our Great Maker is preparing the world, in His own good time, to become one nation, speaking one language, and when armies
and navies will be no longer required.

My efforts in the future will be directed to the restoration of good feeling between the different sections of our common
country; to the restoration of our currency to a fixed value as compared with the world's standard of values-gold-and, if
possible, to a par with it; to the construction of cheap routes of transit throughout the land, to the end that the products
of all may find a market and leave a living remuneration to the producer; to the maintenance of friendly relations with all
our neighbors and with distant nations; to the reestablishment of our commerce and share in the carrying trade upon the ocean;
to the encouragement of such manufacturing industries as can be economically pursued in this country, to the end that the
exports of home products and industries may pay for our imports-the only sure method of returning to and permanently maintaining
a specie basis; to the elevation of labor; and, by a humane course, to bring the aborigines of the country under the benign influences of education and civilization. It is either this or war of extermination: Wars
of extermination, engaged in by people pursuing commerce and all industrial pursuits, are expensive even against the weakest
people, and are demoralizing and wicked. Our superiority of strength and advantages of civilization should make us lenient
toward the Indian. The wrong inflicted upon him should be taken into account and the balance placed to his credit. The moral
view of the question should be considered and the question asked, Can not the Indian be made a useful and productive member
of society by proper teaching and treatment? If the effort is made in good faith, we will stand better before the civilized
nations of the earth and in our own consciences for having made it.

All these things are not to be accomplished by one individual, but they will receive my support and such recommendations to
Congress as will in my judgment best serve to carry them into effect. I beg your support and encouragement.

It has been, and is, my earnest desire to correct abuses that have grown up in the civil service of the country. To secure
this reformation rules regulating methods of appointment and promotions were established and have been tried. My efforts for
such reformation shall be continued to the best of my judgment. The spirit of the rules adopted will be maintained.

I acknowledge before this assemblage, representing, as it does, every section of our country, the obligation I am under to
my countrymen for the great honor they have conferred on me by returning me to the highest office within their gift, and the
further obligation resting on me to render to them the best services within my power. This I promise, looking forward with
the greatest anxiety to the day when I shall be released from responsibilities that at times are almost overwhelming, and
from which I have scarcely had a respite since the eventful firing upon Fort Sumter, in April, 1861, to the present day. My
services were then tendered and accepted under the first call for troops growing out of that event.

I did not ask for place or position, and was entirely without influence or the acquaintance of persons of influence, but was
resolved to perform my part in a struggle threatening the very existence of the nation. I performed a conscientious duty,
without asking promotion or command, and without a revengeful feeling toward any section or individual.

Notwithstanding this, throughout the war, and from my candidacy for my present office in 1868 to the close of the last Presidential
campaign, I have been the subject of abuse and slander scarcely ever equaled in political history, which to-day I feel that
I can afford to disregard in view of your verdict, which I gratefully accept as my vindication.

The leaders of the Allied powers met at Potsdam, Germany, from July 17 to August 2, 1945, to consider the fate of defeated Germany and to plan the final campaign against
Japan. The U.S. representative was President Truman, who had succeeded to the presidency on Roosevelt's death three months
before; and Clement Attlee replaced Winston Churchill as British prime minister during the course of the conference. The first
declaration issued by the conferees was the "unconditional surrender" ultimatum presented to Japan on July 26. Earlier in
the conference Truman had informed Churchill that the United States had successfully tested an atomic device on July 16, to
which Churchill is supposed to have responded: "This is the Second Coming, in wrath." On July 25, a day before the ultimatum,
Truman ordered the Twentieth Air Force at Saipan to use one of the two atomic bombs in their possession at the first opportunity
after August 3 if Japan had not yet surrendered. On July 29 the Japanese cabinet decided to make no immediate comment on the
ultimatum, but press reports of their decision indicated to Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff that they had "ignored" it.
This note of defiance, which may actually have been unintended, led to the decision in Washington to use the bombs. The first
was dropped on Hiroshima on the morning of August 6, destroying over four square miles of the city and killing or injuring
more than 135,000 people. The president's address to the nation on August 6 is reprinted here.

Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base. That bomb had more
power than 20,000 tons of TNT. It had more than 2,000 times the blast power of the British "Grand Slam," which is the largest
bomb ever yet used in the history of warfare.

The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid manyfold. And the end is not yet. With this
bomb we have now added a new and revolutionary increase in destruction to supplement the growing power of our armed forces.
In their present form these bombs are now in production, and even more powerful forms are in development.

It is an atomic bomb. It is a harnessing of the basic power of the universe. The force from which the sun draws its power
has been loosed against those who brought war to the Far East.

Before 1939, it was the accepted belief of scientists that it was theoretically possible to release atomic energy. But no
one knew any practical method of doing it. By 1942, however, we knew that the Germans were working feverishly to find a way
to add atomic energy to the other engines of war with which they hoped to enslave the world. But they failed. We may be grateful
to Providence that the Germans got the V-1's and V-2's late and in limited quantities and even more grateful that they did
not get the atomic bomb at all.

The battle of the laboratories held fateful risks for us as well as the battles of the air, land, and sea, and we have now
won the battle of the laboratories as we have won the other battles.

Beginning in 1940, before Pearl Harbor, scientific knowledge useful in war was pooled between the United States and Great
Britain, and many priceless helps to our victories have come from that arrangement. Under that general policy the research
on the atomic bomb was begun. With American and British scientists working together we entered the race of discovery against
the Germans.

The United States had available the large number of scientists of distinction in the many needed areas of knowledge. It had
the tremendous industrial and financial resources necessary for the project, and they could be devoted to it without undue
impairment of other vital war work. In the United States the laboratory work and the production plants, on which a substantial
start had already been made, would be out of reach of enemy bombing, while at that time Britain was exposed to constant air
attack and was still threatened with the possibility of invasion. For these reasons Prime Minister Churchill and President
Roosevelt agreed that it was wise to carry on the project here.

We now have two great plants and many lesser works devoted to the production of atomic power. Employment during peak construction
numbered 125,000 and over 65,000 individuals are even now engaged in operating the plants. Many have worked there for two
and a half years. Few know what they have been producing. They see great quantities of material going in and they see nothing
coming out of these plants, for the physical size of the explosive charge is exceedingly small. We have spent $2 billion on
the greatest scientific gamble in history--and won.

But the greatest marvel is not the size of the enterprise, its secrecy, nor its cost, but the achievement of scientific brains
in putting together infinitely complex pieces of knowledge held by many men in different fields of science into a workable
plan. And hardly less marvelous has been the capacity of industry to design, and of labor to operate, the machines and methods
to do things never done before so that the brainchild of many minds came forth in physical shape and performed as it was supposed
to do. Both science and industry worked under the direction of the United States Army, which achieved a unique success in
managing so diverse a problem in the advancement of knowledge in an amazingly short time. It is doubtful if such another combination
could be got together in the world. What has been done is the greatest achievement of organized science in history. It was
done under high pressure and without failure.

We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in
any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely
destroy Japan's power to make war.

It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders
promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like
of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power
as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.

The secretary of war, who has kept in personal touch with all phases of the project, will immediately make public a statement
giving further details.

His statement will give facts concerning the sites at Oak Ridge near Knoxville, Tennessee, and at Richland near Pasco, Washington,
and an installation near Santa Fe, New Mexico. Although the workers at the sites have been making materials to be used in
producing the greatest destructive force in history, they have not themselves been in danger beyond that of many other occupations,
for the utmost care has been taken of their safety.

The fact that we can release atomic energy ushers in a new era in man's understanding of nature's forces. Atomic energy may
in the future supplement the power that now comes from coal, oil, and falling water, but at present it cannot be produced
on a basis to compete with them commercially. Before that comes there must be a long period of intensive research.

It has never been the habit of the scientists of this country or the policy of this government to withhold from the world
scientific knowledge. Normally, therefore, everything about the work with atomic energy would be made public.

But under present circumstances it is not intended to divulge the technical processes of production or all the military applications,
pending further examination of possible methods of protecting us and the rest of the world from the danger of sudden destruction.

I shall recommend that the Congress of the United States consider promptly the establishment of an appropriate commission
to control the production and use of atomic power within the United States. I shall give further consideration and make further
recommendations to the Congress as to how atomic power can become a powerful and forceful influence towards the maintenance
of world peace.

Source: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements
of the President, April 12 to December 31,1945,1961, pp. 197-200.

A "new" Eisenhower seemed to emerge during 1959 and 1960, when the President, at last in health, and acting without the advisers
-- Secretary of the Treasury George M. Humphrey, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, and Presidential Assistant Sherman
Adams -- who had dominated the early years of his administration, began to use the powers of his office to implement his policies
and to check the rise of certain influential factions in the government. One group that particularly worried Eisenhower was
the alliance that he dubbed the "military-industrial complex." He warned on several occasions, most notably in his Farewell Address of January 17, 1961, that advances in technology combined
with the growing defense needs of the country had created an opportunity for the military establishment and the armaments
industry to exert undue and improper influence on the formation and conduct of national policy. The warning was especially
striking coming from Eisenhower, product as he was of the military and good friend, as it had been assumed, of "Big Business."
Eisenhower's Farewell Address is reprinted here.

My Fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as,
in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leavetaking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President and all who will labor with him Godspeed. I pray that the coming years
will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution
of which will better shape the future of the nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis, when long ago a member of the Senate appointed
me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate postwar period and, finally, to the mutually
interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well to serve the national
good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official
relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling on my part of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these
involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive
nation in the world. Understandably proud of this preeminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend
not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength but on how we use our power in the interests
of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human
achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy
of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice
would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole
attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose,
and insidious in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully there
is called for not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis but rather those which enable us to carry forward
steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus
shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation
to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase
in newer elements of our defense, development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture, a dramatic expansion
in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as
the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national
programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped-for advantage, balance between
the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties
imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good
judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths
and have responded to them well in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I
mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so
that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting
men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could,
with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense;
we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, 3.5 million men and women
are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all
United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil,
resources, and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for
granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery
of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for, the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture has been the technological revolution
during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly.
A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of the federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and
testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery,
has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract
becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic
computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is
ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we
must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological
elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the
principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and
our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious
resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their
political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom
of tomorrow.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid
becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a
confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected
as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned
for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences,
not with arms but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down
my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and
the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so
slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains
to be done. As a private citizen I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So, in this, my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public
service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will
find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with
justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the nation's
great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied
opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that
those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others
will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease, and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth; and that,
in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect
and love.

One of the main grievances of the anti-Federalists was the omission of a bill of rights from the Constitution. The framers
had briefly discussed such an addition but rejected the idea for a number of reasons. First, each state had its own declaration
of rights that it considered sufficient protection for the people. A second, and even more pertinent, objection was the belief
that every man has certain natural inalienable rights that need not be enumerated. In contrast to the Federalist viewpoint,
those who supported a list of fundamental rights believed that such an enumeration would provide a needed restraint on the
powers of the government. In addition, the courts would have a basis for decisions when a person's rights were infringed upon.
Though Thomas Jefferson was not an anti-Federalist, as he himself insisted, and though he highly praised the Constitution,
he agreed with those who advocated a bill of rights. The following letter of December 20, 1787, to James Madison, helped to
convince the latter that the Constitution needed such an addition.

I like much the general idea of framing a government which should go on of itself peaceably, without needing continual recurrence
to the state legislatures. I like the organization of the government into legislative, judiciary, and executive. I like the
power given the legislature to levy taxes, and for that reason solely I approve of the greater House being chosen by the people
directly. For though I think a House so chosen will be very far inferior to the present Congress, will be very illy qualified
to legislate for the Union, for foreign nations, etc., yet this evil does not weigh against the good of preserving inviolate
the fundamental principle that the people are not to be taxes but by representatives chosen immediately by themselves. I am
captivated by the compromise of the opposite claims of the great and little states, of the latter to equal, and the former
to proportional influence. I am much pleased, too, with the substitution of the method of voting by person, instead of that
of voting by states, and I like the negative given to the executive, conjointly with a third of either House; though I should
have liked it better had the judiciary been associated for that purpose, or invested separately with a similar power. There
are other good things of less moment.

I will now tell you what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly and without the aid of
sophism for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the
eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of
the land and not by the laws of nations. To say, as Mr. Wilson does, that a bill of rights was not necessary because all is
reserved in the case of the general government, which is not given, while in the particular ones, all is given which is not
reserved, might do for the audience to which it was addressed, but it is surely a gratis dictum [a mere assertion], the reverse of which might just as well be said; and it is opposed by strong inferences from the body
of the instrument as well as from the omission of the clause of our present Confederation, which had made the reservation
in express terms.

It was hard to conclude because there has been a want of uniformity among the states as to the cases triable by jury, because
some have been so incautious as to dispense with this mode of trial in certain cases, therefore, the more prudent states shall
be reduced to the same level of calamity. It would have been much more just and wise to have concluded the other way, that
as most of the states had preserved with jealousy this sacred palladium of liberty, those who had wandered should be brought
back to it; and to have established general right rather than general wrong. For I consider all the ill as established which
may be established. I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away; and Congress will have a right to take
away trials by jury in all civil cases. Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every
government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse or rest on inference.

Source: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and Other Writings,
Official and Private, H.A. Washington, ed., 1853-1854, 9 vols.

Taft and the Republicans promised a lowering of tariffs during the 1908 campaign. When Taft took office he called a special
session of Congress for this purpose. The House reported a bill that did lower most duties, but the Senate added over 800
amendments, and the final rates were little lower than in previous years. In spite of strong Midwestern opposition, the Payne-Aldrich
Tariff was passed and signed by the President. In a speech at Winona, Minnesota, on September 17, 1909, a portion of which
is reprinted here, Taft defended it as "the best tariff bill" ever passed.

As long ago as August 1906, in the congressional campaign in Maine, I ventured to announce that I was a tariff revisionist
and thought that the time had come for a readjustment of the schedules. I pointed out that it had been ten years prior to
that time that the Dingley Bill had been passed; that great changes had taken place in the conditions surrounding the productions
of the farm, the factory, and the mine, and that under the theory of protection in that time the rates imposed in the Dingley
Bill in many instances might have become excessive; that is, might have been greater than the difference between the cost
of production abroad and the cost of production at home, with a sufficient allowance for a reasonable rate of profit to the
American producer.

I said that the party was divided on the issue, but that in my judgment the opinion of the party was crystallizing and would
probably result in the near future in an effort to make such revision. I pointed out the difficulty that there always was
in a revision of the tariff, due to the threatened disturbance of industries to be affected and the suspension of business,
in a way which made it unwise to have too many revisions.

In the summer of 1907 my position on the tariff was challenged, and I then entered into a somewhat fuller discussion of the
matter. It was contended by the so-called standpatters that rates beyond the necessary measure of protection were not objectionable
because behind the tariff wall competition always reduced the prices and thus saved the consumer. But I pointed out in that
speech what seems to me as true today as it then was, that the danger of excessive rates was in the temptation they created
to form monopolies in the protected articles, and thus to take advantage of the excessive rates by increasing the prices,
and therefore, and in order to avoid such a danger, it was wise at regular intervals to examine the question of what the effect
of the rates had been upon the industries in this country, and whether the conditions with respect to the cost of production
here had so changed as to warrant a reduction in the tariff, and to make a lower rate truly protective of the industry.

It will be observed that the object of the revision under such a statement was not to destroy protected industries in this
country but it was to continue to protect them where lower rates offered a sufficient protection to prevent injury by foreign
competition. That was the object of the revision as advocated by me, and it was certainly the object of the revision as promised
in the Republican platform.

I want to make as clear as I can this proposition, because, in order to determine whether a bill is a compliance with the
terms of that platform, it must be understood what the platform means. A free trader is opposed to any protective rate because
he thinks that our manufacturers, our farmers, and our miners ought to withstand the competition of foreign manufacturers
and miners and farmers, or else go out of business and find something else more profitable to do. Now, certainly the promises
of the platform did not contemplate the downward revision of the tariff rates to such a point that any industry theretofore
protected should be injured. Hence, those who contend that the promise of the platform was to reduce prices by letting in
foreign competition are contending for a free trade and not for anything that they had the right to infer from the Republican
platform.

The Ways and Means Committee of the House, with Mr. Payne at its head, spent a full year in an investigation, assembling evidence
in reference to the rates under the tariff, and devoted an immense amount of work in the study of the question where the tariff
rates could be reduced and where they ought to be raised with a view to maintaining a reasonably protective rate, under the
principles of the platform, for every industry that deserved protection. They found that the determination of the question,
what was the actual cost of production and whether an industry in this country could live under a certain rate and withstand
threatened competition from abroad, was most difficult. The manufacturers were prone to exaggerate the injury which a reduction
in the duty would give and to magnify the amount of duty that was needed; while the importers, on the other hand, who were
interested in developing the importation from foreign shores, were quite likely to be equally biased on the other side.

Mr. Payne reported a bill--the Payne Tariff Bill--which went to the Senate and was amended in the Senate by increasing the
duty on some things and decreasing it on others. The difference between the House bill and the Senate bill was very much less
than the newspapers represented. It turns out upon examination that the reductions in the Senate were about equal to those
in the House, though they differed in character.

Now, there is nothing quite so difficult as the discussion of a tariff bill, for the reason that it covers so many different
items, and the meaning of the terms and the percentages are very hard to understand. The passage of a new bill, especially
where a change in the method of assessing the duties has been followed, presents an opportunity for various modes and calculations
of the percentages of increases and decreases that are most misleading and really throw no light at all upon the changes made.

One way of stating what was done is to say what the facts show--that under the Dingley law there were 2,024 items. This included
dutiable items only. The Payne law leaves 1,150 of these items unchanged. There are decreases in 654 of the items and increases
in 220 of the items. Now, of course, that does not give a full picture, but it does show the proportion of decreases to have
been three times those of the increases. . . .

Now, the promise of the Republican platform was not to revise everything downward, and in the speeches which have been taken
as interpreting that platform which I made in the campaign, I did not promise that everything should go downward. What I promised
was that there should be many decreases, and that in some few things increases would be found to be necessary; but that on
the whole I conceived that the change of conditions would make the revision necessarily downward--and that, I contend, under
the showing which I have made, has been the result of the Payne Bill. I did not agree, nor did the Republican Party agree,
that we would reduce rates to such a point as to reduce prices by the introduction of foreign competition. That is what the
free traders desire. That is what the revenue tariff reformers desire; but that is not what the Republican platform promised,
and it is not what the Republican Party wished to bring about.

To repeat the statement with which I opened this speech, the proposition of the Republican Party was to reduce rates so as
to maintain a difference between the cost of production abroad and the cost of production here, insuring a reasonable profit
to the manufacturer on all articles produced in this country; and the proposition to reduce rates and prevent their being
excessive was to avoid the opportunity for monopoly and the suppression of competition, so that the excessive rates could
be taken advantage of to force prices up.

Now, it is said that there was not a reduction in a number of the schedules where there should have been. It is said that
there was no reduction in the cotton schedule. There was not. The House and the Senate took evidence and found from cotton
manufacturers and from other sources that the rates upon the lower class of cottons were such as to enable them to make a
decent profit--but only a decent profit--and they were contented with it; but that the rates on the higher grades of cotton
cloth, by reason of court decisions, had been reduced so that they were considerably below those of the cheaper grades of
cotton cloth, and that by undervaluations and otherwise the whole cotton schedule had been made unjust and the various items
were disproportionate in respect to the varying cloths.

Hence, in the Senate, a new system was introduced attempting to make the duties more specific rather than ad valorem in order
to prevent by judicial decision or otherwise a disproportionate and unequal operation of the schedule. Under this schedule
it was contended that there had been a general rise of all the duties on cotton. This was vigorously denied by the experts
of the Treasury Department. At last, the Senate, in conference, consented to a reduction amounting to about 10 percent on
all the lower grades of cotton, and this reduced the lower grades of cotton substantially to the same rates as before and
increased the higher grades to what they ought to be under the Dingley law and what they were intended to be.

Now, I am not going into the question of evidence as to whether the cotton duties were too high and whether the difference
between the cost of production abroad and at home, allowing for a reasonable profit to the manufacturer here, is less than
the duties which are imposed under the Payne Bill. It was a question of evidence which Congress passed upon, after they heard
the statements of cotton manufacturers and such other evidence as they could avail themselves of. I agree that the method
of taking evidence and the determination was made in a general way and that there ought to be other methods of obtaining evidence
and reaching a conclusion more satisfactory. . . .

On the whole, however, I am bound to say that I think the Payne Tariff Bill is the best tariff bill that the Republican Party
ever passed; that in it the party has conceded the necessity for following the changed conditions and reducing tariff rates
accordingly. This is a substantial achievement in the direction of lower tariffs and downward revision, and it ought to be
accepted as such. Critics of the bill utterly ignore the very tremendous cuts that have been made in the iron schedule which
heretofore has been subject to criticism in all tariff bills. . . .

The high cost of living, of which 50 percent is consumed in food, 25 percent in clothing, and 25 percent in rent and fuel,
has not been produced by the tariff, because the tariff has remained the same while the increases have gone on. It is due
to the change of conditions the world over. Living has increased everywhere in cost--in countries where there is free trade
and in countries where there is protection--and that increase has been chiefly seen in the cost of food products. In other
words, we have had to pay more for the products of the farmer--for meat, for grain, for everything that enters into food.
Now, certainly no one will contend that protection has increased the cost of food in this country, when the fact is that we
have been the greatest exporters of food products in the world. It is only that the demand has increased beyond the supply,
that farmlands have not been opened as rapidly as the population, and the demand has increased.

I am not saying that the tariff does not increase prices in clothing and in building and in other items that enter into the
necessities of life, but what I wish to emphasize is that the recent increases in the cost of living in this country have
not been due to the tariff. We have a much higher standard of living in this country than they have abroad, and this has been
made possible by higher income for the workingman, the farmer, and all classes. Higher wages have been made possible by the
encouragement of diversified industries, built up and fostered by the tariff.

Now, the revision downward of the tariff that I have favored will not, I hope, destroy the industries of the country. Certainly
it is not intended to. All that it is intended to do, and that is what I wish to repeat, is to put the tariff where it will
protect industries here from foreign competition but will not enable those who will wish to monopolize to raise prices by
taking advantage of excessive rates beyond the normal difference in the cost of production.

If the country desires free trade, and the country desires a revenue tariff and wishes the manufacturers all over the country
to go out of business, and to have cheaper prices at the expense of the sacrifice of many of our manufacturing interests,
then it ought to say so and ought to put the Democratic Party in power if it thinks that party can be trusted to carry out
any affirmative policy in favor of a revenue tariff. Certainly in the discussions in the Senate there was no great manifestation
on the part of our Democratic friends in favor of reducing rates on necessities. They voted to maintain the tariff rates on
everything that came from their particular sections. If we are to have free trade, certainly it cannot be had through the
maintenance of Republican majorities in the Senate and House and a Republican administration.

Proceeding, fellow-citizens, to that qualification which the Constitution requires before my entrance on the charge again
conferred on me, it is my duty to express the deep sense I entertain of this new proof of confidence from my fellow-citizens
at large, and the zeal with which it inspires me so to conduct myself as may best satisfy their just expectations.

On taking this station on a former occasion I declared the principles on which I believed it my duty to administer the affairs
of our Commonwealth. My conscience tells me I have on every occasion acted up to that declaration according to its obvious
import and to the understanding of every candid mind.

In the transaction of your foreign affairs we have endeavored to cultivate the friendship of all nations, and especially of
those with which we have the most important relations. We have done them justice on all occasions, favored where favor was
lawful, and cherished mutual interests and intercourse on fair and equal terms. We are firmly convinced, and we act on that
conviction, that with nations as with individuals our interests soundly calculated will ever be found inseparable from our
moral duties, and history bears witness to the fact that a just nation is trusted on its word when recourse is had to armaments
and wars to bridle others.

At home, fellow-citizens, you best know whether we have done well or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless
establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal taxes. These, covering our land with officers and opening
our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation which once entered is scarcely to be
restrained from reaching successively every article of property and produce. If among these taxes some minor ones fell which
had not been inconvenient, it was because their amount would not have paid the officers who collected them, and because, if
they had any merit, the State authorities might adopt them instead of others less approved.

The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles is paid chiefly by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries
to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboard and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile
citizens, it may be the pleasure and the pride of an American to ask, What farmer, what mechanic, what laborer ever sees a
tax gatherer of the United States? These contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the Government, to fulfill
contracts with foreign nations, to extinguish the native right of soil within our limits, to extend those limits, and to apply
such a surplus to our public debts as places at a short day their final redemption, and that redemption once effected the
revenue thereby liberated may, by a just repartition of it among the States and a corresponding amendment of the Constitution,
be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State.
In time of war, if injustice by ourselves or others must sometimes produce war, increased as the same revenue will be by increased
population and consumption, and aided by other resources reserved for that crisis, it may meet within the year all the expenses
of the year without encroaching on the rights of future generations by burthening them with the debts of the past. War will
then be but a suspension of useful works, and a return to a state of peace, a return to the progress of improvement.

I have said, fellow-citizens, that the income reserved had enabled us to extend our limits, but that extension may possibly
pay for itself before we are called on, and in the meantime may keep down the accruing interest; in all events, it will replace
the advances we shall have made. I know that the acquisition of Louisiana had been disapproved by some from a candid apprehension
that the enlargement of our territory would endanger its union. But who can limit the extent to which the federative principle
may operate effectively? The larger our association the less will it be shaken by local passions; and in any view is it not
better that the opposite bank of the Mississippi should be settled by our own brethren and children than by strangers of another
family? With which should we be most likely to live in harmony and friendly intercourse?

In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of
the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but
have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged
by the several religious societies.

The aboriginal inhabitants of these countries I have regarded with the commiseration their history inspires. Endowed with
the faculties and the rights of men, breathing an ardent love of liberty and independence, and occupying a country which left
them no desire but to be undisturbed, the stream of overflowing population from other regions directed itself on these shores;
without power to divert or habits to contend against it, they have been overwhelmed by the current or driven before it; now
reduced within limits too narrow for the hunter's state, humanity enjoins us to teach them agriculture and the domestic arts;
to encourage them to that industry which alone can enable them to maintain their place in existence and to prepare them in
time for that state of society which to bodily comforts adds the improvement of the mind and morals. We have therefore liberally
furnished them with the implements of husbandry and household use; we have placed among them instructors in the arts of first
necessity, and they are covered with the aegis of the law against aggressors from among ourselves.

But the endeavors to enlighten them on the fate which awaits their present course of life, to induce them to exercise their
reason, follow its dictates, and change their pursuits with the change of circumstances have powerful obstacles to encounter;
they are combated by the habits of their bodies, prejudices of their minds, ignorance, pride, and the influence of interested
and crafty individuals among them who feel themselves something in the present order of things and fear to become nothing
in any other. These persons inculcate a sanctimonious reverence for the customs of their ancestors; that whatsoever they did
must be done through all time; that reason is a false guide, and to advance under its counsel in their physical, moral, or
political condition is perilous innovation; that their duty is to remain as their Creator made them, ignorance being safety
and knowledge full of danger; in short, my friends, among them also is seen the action and counteraction of good sense and
of bigotry; they too have their antiphilosophists who find an interest in keeping things in their present state, who dread
reformation, and exert all their faculties to maintain the ascendancy of habit over the duty of improving our reason and obeying
its mandates.

In giving these outlines I do not mean, fellow-citizens, to arrogate to myself the merit of the measures. That is due, in
the first place, to the reflecting character of our citizens at large, who, by the weight of public opinion, influence and
strengthen the public measures. It is due to the sound discretion with which they select from among themselves those to whom
they confide the legislative duties. It is due to the zeal and wisdom of the characters thus selected, who lay the foundations
of public happiness in wholesome laws, the execution of which alone remains for others, and it is due to the able and faithful
auxiliaries, whose patriotism has associated them with me in the executive functions.

During this course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us,
charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and
science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety. They might, indeed,
have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved to and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood
and defamation, but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been
left to find their punishment in the public indignation.

Nor was it uninteresting to the world that an experiment should be fairly and fully made, whether freedom of discussion, unaided
by power, is not sufficient for the propagation and protection of truth-whether a government conducting itself in the true
spirit of its constitution, with zeal and purity, and doing no act which it would be unwilling the whole world should witness,
can be written down by falsehood and defamation. The experiment has been tried; you have witnessed the scene; our fellow-citizens
looked on, cool and collected; they saw the latent source from which these outrages proceeded; they gathered around their
public functionaries, and when the Constitution called them to the decision by suffrage, they pronounced their verdict, honorable
to those who had served them and consolatory to the friend of man who believes that he may be trusted with the control of
his own affairs.

No inference is here intended that the laws provided by the States against false and defamatory publications should not be
enforced; he who has time renders a service to public morals and public tranquillity in reforming these abuses by the salutary
coercions of the law; but the experiment is noted to prove that, since truth and reason have maintained their ground against
false opinions in league with false facts, the press, confined to truth, needs no other legal restraint; the public judgment
will correct false reasoning and opinions on a full hearing of all parties; and no other definite line can be drawn between
the inestimable liberty of the press and its demoralizing licentiousness. If there be still improprieties which this rule
would not restrain, its supplement must be sought in the censorship of public opinion.

Contemplating the union of sentiment now manifested so generally as auguring harmony and happiness to our future course, I
offer to our country sincere congratulations. With those, too, not yet rallied to the same point the disposition to do so
is gaining strength; facts are piercing through the veil drawn over them, and our doubting brethren will at length see that
the mass of their fellow-citizens with whom they can not yet resolve to act as to principles and measures, think as they think
and desire what they desire; that our wish as well as theirs is that the public efforts may be directed honestly to the public
good, that peace be cultivated, civil and religious liberty unassailed, law and order preserved, equality of rights maintained,
and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his father's. When
satisfied of these views it is not in human nature that they should not approve and support them. In the meantime let us cherish
them with patient affection, let us do them justice, and more than justice, in all competitions of interest; and we need not
doubt that truth, reason, and their own interests will at length prevail, will gather them into the fold of their country,
and will complete that entire union of opinion which gives to a nation the blessing of harmony and the benefit of all its
strength.

I shall now enter on the duties to which my fellow-citizens have again called me, and shall proceed in the spirit of those
principles which they have approved. I fear not that any motives of interest may lead me astray; I am sensible of no passion
which could seduce me knowingly from the path of justice, but the weaknesses of human nature and the limits of my own understanding
will produce errors of judgment sometimes injurious to your interests. I shall need, therefore, all the indulgence which I
have heretofore experienced from my constituents; the want of it will certainly not lessen with increasing years. I shall
need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and
planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence
and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will
so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result
in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.

About to undertake the arduous duties that I have been appointed to perform by the choice of a free people, I avail myself
of this customary and solemn occasion to express the gratitude which their confidence inspires and to acknowledge the accountability
which my situation enjoins. While the magnitude of their interests convinces me that no thanks can be adequate to the honor
they have conferred, it admonishes me that the best return I can make is the zealous dedication of my humble abilities to
their service and their good.

As the instrument of the Federal Constitution it will devolve on me for a stated period to execute the laws of the United
States, to superintend their foreign and their confederate relations, to manage their revenue, to command their forces, and,
by communications to the Legislature, to watch over and to promote their interests generally. And the principles of action
by which I shall endeavor to accomplish this circle of duties it is now proper for me briefly to explain.

In administering the laws of Congress I shall keep steadily in view the limitations as well as the extent of the Executive
power, trusting thereby to discharge the functions of my office without transcending its authority. With foreign nations it
will be my study to preserve peace and to cultivate friendship on fair and honorable terms, and in the adjustment of any differences
that may exist or arise to exhibit the forbearance becoming a powerful nation rather than the sensibility belonging to a gallant
people.

In such measures as I may be called on to pursue in regard to the rights of the separate States I hope to be animated by a
proper respect for those sovereign members of our Union, taking care not to confound the powers they have reserved to themselves
with those they have granted to the Confederacy.

The management of the public revenue-that searching operation in all governments-is among the most delicate and important
trusts in ours, and it will, of course, demand no inconsiderable share of my official solicitude. Under every aspect in which
it can be considered it would appear that advantage must result from the observance of a strict and faithful economy. This
I shall aim at the more anxiously both because it will facilitate the extinguishment of the national debt, the unnecessary
duration of which is incompatible with real independence, and because it will counteract that tendency to public and private
profligacy which a profuse expenditure of money by the Government is but too apt to engender. Powerful auxiliaries to the
attainment of this desirable end are to be found in the regulations provided by the wisdom of Congress for the specific appropriation
of public money and the prompt accountability of public officers.

With regard to a proper selection of the subjects of impost with a view to revenue, it would seem to me that the spirit of
equity, caution, and compromise in which the Constitution was formed requires that the great interests of agriculture, commerce,
and manufactures should be equally favored, and that perhaps the only exception to this rule should consist in the peculiar
encouragement of any products of either of them that may be found essential to our national independence.

Internal improvement and the diffusion of knowledge, so far as they can be promoted by the constitutional acts of the Federal
Government, are of high importance.

Considering standing armies as dangerous to free governments in time of peace, I shall not seek to enlarge our present establishment,
nor disregard that salutary lesson of political experience which teaches that the military should be held subordinate to the
civil power. The gradual increase of our Navy, whose flag has displayed in distant climes our skill in navigation and our
fame in arms; the preservation of our forts, arsenals, and dockyards, and the introduction of progressive improvements in
the discipline and science of both branches of our military service are so plainly prescribed by prudence that I should be
excused for omitting their mention sooner than for enlarging on their importance. But the bulwark of our defense is the national
militia, which in the present state of our intelligence and population must render us invincible. As long as our Government
is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of person
and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending; and so long as it is worth defending
a patriotic militia will cover it with an impenetrable aegis. Partial injuries and occasional mortifications we may be subjected
to, but a million of armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered by a foreign foe. To any just system,
therefore, calculated to strengthen this natural safeguard of the country I shall cheerfully lend all the aid in my power.

It will be my sincere and constant desire to observe toward the Indian tribes within our limits a just and liberal policy,
and to give that humane and considerate attention to their rights and their wants which is consistent with the habits of our
Government and the feelings of our people.

The recent demonstration of public sentiment inscribes on the list of Executive duties, in characters too legible to be overlooked,
the task of reform, which will require particularly the correction of those abuses that have brought the patronage of the
Federal Government into conflict with the freedom of elections, and the counteraction of those causes which have disturbed
the rightful course of appointment and have placed or continued power in unfaithful or incompetent hands.

In the performance of a task thus generally delineated I shall endeavor to select men whose diligence and talents will insure
in their respective stations able and faithful cooperation, depending for the advancement of the public service more on the
integrity and zeal of the public officers than on their numbers.

A diffidence, perhaps too just, in my own qualifications will teach me to look with reverence to the examples of public virtue
left by my illustrious predecessors, and with veneration to the lights that flow from the mind that founded and the mind that
reformed our system. The same diffidence induces me to hope for instruction and aid from the coordinate branches of the Government,
and for the indulgence and support of my fellow-citizens generally. And a firm reliance on the goodness of that Power whose
providence mercifully protected our national infancy, and has since upheld our liberties in various vicissitudes, encourages
me to offer up my ardent supplications that He will continue to make our beloved country the object of His divine care and
gracious benediction.

Thomas Jefferson, whose election to the presidency had been hailed as the "revolution of 1800," was constantly denounced during
his two administrations (1801-1809) by the Federalist press. He was accused of everything from atheism to a desire to make
America a French satellite. His consequent dim view of the press, which he retained to the end of his life, is expressed in
this letter to John Norvell, dated June 14, 1807.

Your letter of May 9 has been duly received. The subject it proposes would require time and space for even moderate development.
My occupations limit me to a very short notice of them. I think there does not exist a good elementary work on the organization
of society into civil government. I mean a work which presents in one full and comprehensive view the system of principles
on which such an organization should be founded, according to the rights of nature. For want of a single work of that character,
I should recommend Locke on Government, Sidney, Priestley's Essay on the First Principles of Government, Chipman's Principles of Government, The Federalist. Adding, perhaps, Beccaria on crimes and punishments because of the demonstrative manner in which he has treated that branch
of the subject. If your views of political inquiry go further, to the subjects of money and commerce, Smith's Wealth of Nations is the best book to be read, unless Say's Political Economy can be had, which treats the same subject on the same principles, but in a shorter compass and more lucid manner. But I believe
this work has not been translated into our language.

History, in general, only informs us what bad government is. But as we have employed some of the best materials of the British
constitution in the construction of our own government, a knowledge of British history becomes useful to the American politician.
There is, however, no general history of that country which can be recommended. The elegant one of Hume seems intended to
disguise and discredit the good principles of the government and is so plausible and pleasing in its style and manner as to
instill its errors and heresies insensibly into the minds of unwary readers. Baxter has performed a good operation on it.
He has taken the text of Hume as his groundwork, abridging it by the omission of some details of little interest, and wherever
he has found him endeavoring to mislead, by either the suppression of a truth or by giving it a false coloring, he has changed
the text to what it should be, so that we may properly call it Hume's history republicanized. He has, moreover, continued
the history (but indifferently) from where Hume left it, to the year 1800. The work is not popular in England because it is
republican; and but a few copies have ever reached America. It is a single quarto volume. Adding to this Ludlow's Memoirs, Mrs. Macauley's and Belknap's histories, a sufficient view will be presented of the free principles of the English constitution.

To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted so as to be most useful, I should answer,
"by restraining it to true facts and sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy
truth that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits than is done by its abandoned
prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being
put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations
to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of
my fellow citizens who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing
in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period
of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed
be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected
a great portion of Europe to his will, etc., but no details can be relied on. I will add that the man who never looks into
a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind
is filled with falsehoods and errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.

Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into four chapters, heading the first,
Truths; the second, Probabilities; the third, Possibilities; the fourth, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it
would contain little more than authentic papers and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his
own reputation for their truth. The second would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment
should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The third and fourth should
be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy.

Such an editor, too, would have to set his face against the demoralizing practice of feeding the public mind habitually on
slander and the depravity of taste which this nauseous aliment induces. Defamation is becoming a necessary of life, insomuch
that a dish of tea in the morning or evening cannot be digested without this stimulant. Even those who do not believe these
abominations still read them with complaisance to their auditors, and instead of the abhorrence and indignation which should
fill a virtuous mind, betray a secret pleasure in the possibility that some may believe them, though they do not themselves.
It seems to escape them that it is not he who prints but he who pays for printing a slander who is its real author.

These thoughts on the subjects of your letter are hazarded at your request. Repeated instances of the publication of what
has not been intended for the public eye, and the malignity with which political enemies torture every sentence from me into
meanings imagined by their own wickedness only, justify my expressing a solicitude that this hasty communication may in nowise
be permitted to find its way into the public papers. Not fearing these political bulldogs, I yet avoid putting myself in the
way of being baited by them, and do not wish to volunteer away that portion of tranquillity which a firm execution of my duties
will permit me to enjoy.

The Monroe Doctrine, in Monroe's handwriting, 1823
The Granger Collection, New York City

The Monroe Doctrine comprised some general remarks on foreign policy that President James Monroe included in his annual message
to Congress on December 2, 1823. The first draft of the message included a reproof to the French for their invasion of Spain,
an acknowledgment of Greek independence in the revolt against Turkey, and some further indications of American concern in
European affairs. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams argued for the better part of two days against such expressions, which were finally eliminated from the message. "The ground
that I wish to take," Adams noted in his Diary, "is that of earnest remonstrance against the interference of the European powers by force in South America, but to disclaim
all interference on our part with Europe; to make an American cause, and adhere inflexibly to that." Despite the ambiguities
that have surrounded the application of this policy since its inception, one theme was clear: There were two worlds, the Old
and the New; each must lead its separate existence, always aware of a bond between them, but never intervening in the affairs
of the other.

A precise knowledge of our relations with foreign powers as respects our negotiations and transactions with each is thought
to be particularly necessary. . . .

At the proposal of the Russian Imperial government, made through the minister of the emperor residing here, full power and
instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation
the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal had been
made by His Imperial Majesty to the government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The government of the
United States has been desirous, by this friendly proceeding, of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached
to the friendship of the emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his government.

In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion
has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved,
that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not
to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . . .

It was stated at the commencement of the last session that great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the
condition of the people of those countries and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely
be remarked that the result has been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the
globe with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested
spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of
their fellowmen on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have
never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced
that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense.

With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious
to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect
from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments; and to the defense
of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened
citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor
and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt
on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.

With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with
the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration
and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling
in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition
toward the United States. In the war between those new governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their
recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment
of the competent authorities of this government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable
to their security.

The late events in Spain and Portugal show that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be
adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed
by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a
question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even those most remote, and
surely none more so than the United States.

Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of
the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider
the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those
relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries
from none. But in regard to those continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that
the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and
happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord.

It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to
the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new governments, and their distance from each other, it must be
obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves,
in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 2, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 207-220.

The slave revolt on the island of Hispaniola that was led with remarkable brilliance by Toussaint L'Ouverture from 1791 until
his betrayal into French hands in 1802 was an inspiration to African slaves in other colonies. Word of Toussaint's conquest of Santo Domingo in 1801 came to the vicinity of Richmond, Virginia, in the
same year and encouraged a slave named Gabriel and his nearly 1,000 followers to attempt a similar revolt. The uprising, however,
was put down, and some 25 African Americans were executed. James Monroe, then governor of Virginia, expressed his concern in a letter to President Thomas Jefferson and
sought his advice on provisions for the remaining rebels. Jefferson replied on November 24, urging some form of colonization
for the renegades.

I had not been unmindful of your letter of June 15, covering a resolution of the House of Representatives of Virginia, and
referred to in yours of the 17th inst. The importance of the subject, and the belief that it gave us time for consideration
till the next meeting of the legislature, have induced me to defer the answer to this date. You will perceive that some circumstances
connected with the subject, and necessarily presenting themselves to view, would be improper but for yours and the legislative
ear. Their publication might have an ill effect in more than one quarter. In confidence of attention to this, I shall indulge
greater freedom in writing.

Common malefactors, I presume, make no part of the object of that resolution. Neither their numbers nor the nature of their
offenses seem to require any provisions beyond those practised heretofore and found adequate to the repression of ordinary
crimes. Conspiracy, insurgency, treason, rebellion, among that description of persons who brought on us the alarm, and on
themselves the tragedy of 1800 were doubtless within the view of everyone; but many perhaps contemplated, and one expression
of the resolution might comprehend, a much larger scope. Respect to both opinions makes it my duty to understand the resolution
in all the extent of which it is susceptible.

The idea seems to be to provide for these people by a purchase of lands; and it is asked whether such a purchase can be made
of the U.S. in their western territory? A very great extent of country, north of the Ohio, has been laid off into townships,
and is now at market, according to the provisions of the acts of Congress, with which you are acquainted. There is nothing
which would restrain the state of Virginia, either in the purchase or the application of these lands; but a purchase, by the
acre, might perhaps be a more expensive provision than the House of Representatives contemplated. Questions would also arise
whether the establishment of such a colony within our limits, and to become a part of our Union, would be desirable to the
state of Virginia itself, or to the other states--especially those who would be in its vicinity?

Could we procure lands beyond the limits of the U.S. to form a receptacle for these people? On our northern boundary, the
country not occupied by British subjects is the property of Indian nations, whose title would be to be extinguished, with
the consent of Great Britain; and the new settlers would be British subjects. It is hardly to be believed that either Great
Britain or the Indian proprietors have so disinterested a regard for us as to be willing to relieve us by receiving such a
colony themselves; and as much to be doubted whether that race of men could long exist in so rigorous a climate. On our western
and southern frontiers, Spain holds an immense country, the occupancy of which, however, is in the Indian natives, except
a few isolated spots possessed by Spanish subjects. It is very questionable, indeed, whether the Indians would sell, whether
Spain would be willing to receive these people, and nearly certain that she would not alienate the sovereignty.

The same question to ourselves would recur here also, as did in the first case: should we be willing to have such a colony
in contact with us? However our present interests may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward
to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits and cover the whole northern, if not
the southern, continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms and by similar laws; nor can
we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface. Spain, France, and Portugal hold possessions on the
southern continent, as to which I am not well enough informed to say how far they might meet our views. But either there or
in the northern continent, should the constituted authorities of Virginia fix their attention, of preference, I will have
the dispositions of those powers sounded in the first instance.

The West Indies offer a more probable and practicable retreat for them. Inhabited already by a people of their own race and
color, climates congenial with their natural constitution, insulated from the other descriptions of men; nature seems to have
formed these islands to become the receptacle of the blacks transplanted into this hemisphere. Whether we could obtain from
the European sovereigns of those islands leave to send thither the persons under consideration, I cannot say; but I think
it more probable than the former propositions, because of their being already inhabited more or less by the same race. The
most promising portion of them is the island of Santo Domingo, where the black are established into a sovereignty de facto and have organized themselves under regular laws and government. I should conjecture that their present ruler might be willing,
on many considerations, to receive even that description which would be exiled for acts deemed criminal by us, but meritorious,
perhaps, by him.

The possibility that these exiles might stimulate and conduct vindicative or predatory descents on our coasts, and facilitate
concert with their brethren remaining here, looks to a state of things between that island and us not probable on a contemplation
of our relative strength, and of the disproportion daily growing; and it is overweighed by the humanity of the measures proposed
and the advantages of disembarrassing ourselves of such dangerous characters. Africa would offer a last and undoubted resort,
if all others more desirable should fail us.

Whenever the legislature of Virginia shall have brought its mind to a point so that I may know exactly what to propose to
foreign authorities, I will execute their wishes with fidelity and zeal. I hope, however, they will pardon me for suggesting
a single question for their own consideration. When we contemplate the variety of countries and of sovereigns toward which
we may direct our views; the vast revolutions and changes of circumstances which are now in a course of progression; the possibilities
that arrangements now to be made, with a view to any particular plan, may, at no great distance of time, be totally deranged
by a change of sovereignty, of government, or of other circumstances, it will be for the legislature to consider whether,
after they shall have made all those general provisions which may be fixed by legislative authority, it would be reposing
too much confidence in their executive to leave the place of relegation to be decided on by them. They could accommodate their arrangements to the actual state of things in which countries or powers may be found to exist
at the day; and may prevent the effect of the law from being defeated by intervening changes. This, however, is for them to
decide. Our duty will be to respect their decision.

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend
clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom-symbolizing an end, as well
as a beginning-signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our
forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all
forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe-the
belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to
friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans-born in this century, tempered by war,
disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage-and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing
of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around
the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,
support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge-and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there
is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do-for we dare not meet a powerful
challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not
have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our
view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom-and to remember that, in the past, those
who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best
efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required-not because the Communists may be doing it, not because
we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few
who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge-to convert our good words into good deeds-in a new
alliance for progress-to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution
of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression
or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of
its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war
have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support-to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for
invective-to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak-and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin
anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental
self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that
they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course-both sides overburdened by the
cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain
balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew-remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to
proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms-and bring
the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the
deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah-to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the
oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not
a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this
Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country
was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young
Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again-not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled
we are-but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"-a
struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful
life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum
danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility-I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with
any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our
country and all who serve it-and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice
which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth
to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

In the fall of 1865 President Andrew Johnson sent several prominent men, including Carl Schurz, Harvey Watterson, and General
Grant, to tour the South and report to him on the conditions they observed. Schurz's report dwelt on Southern intransigence
and urged a harsher Reconstruction policy in line with the recommendations of Congress. Watterson and Grant, on the other
hand, pointed out that the South was conciliatory and upheld the President's policy. Grant, who left Washington on November
29 and visited major cities in North and South Carolina, and Georgia, sent the following report to the President on December
18.

Sir:

In reply to your note of the 16th instant requesting a report from me giving such information as I may be possessed of coming
within the scope of the inquiries made by the Senate of the United States in their resolution of the 12th instant, I have
the honor to submit the following:

With your approval, and also that of the honorable secretary of war, I left Washington city on the 27th of last month for
the purpose of making a tour of inspection through some of the Southern states, or states lately in rebellion, and to see
what changes were necessary to be made in the disposition of the military forces of the country; how these forces could be
reduced and expenses curtailed, etc.; and to learn, as far as possible, the feelings and intentions of the citizens of those
states toward the general government.

The state of Virginia, being so accessible to Washington city, and information from this quarter, therefore, being readily
obtained, I hastened through the state without conversing or meeting with any of its citizens. In Raleigh, North Carolina,
I spent one day; in Charleston, South Carolina, two days; Savannah and Augusta, Georgia, each one day. Both in traveling and
while stopping, I saw much and conversed freely with the citizens of those states, as well as with officers of the Army who
have been stationed among them. The following are the conclusions come to by me.

I am satisfied that the mass of thinking men of the South accept the present situation of affairs in good faith. The questions
which have heretofore divided the sentiment of the people of the two sections -- slavery and state's rights, or the right of a state to secede from the Union -- they regard as having been settled forever by the highest tribunal --
arms -- that man can resort to. I was pleased to learn from the leading men whom I met that they not only accepted the decision
arrived at as final but, now that the smoke of battle has cleared away and time has been given for reflection, that this decision
has been a fortunate one for the whole country, they receiving like benefits from it with those who opposed them in the field
and in council.

Four years of war, during which law was executed only at the point of the bayonet throughout the states in rebellion, have
left the people possibly in a condition not to yield that ready obedience to civil authority the American people have generally
been in the habit of yielding. This would render the presence of small garrisons throughout those states necessary until such
time as labor returns to its proper channel and civil authority is fully established. I did not meet anyone, either those
holding places under the government or citizens of the Southern states, who think it practicable to withdraw the military
from the South at present. The white and the black mutually require the protection of the general governments.

There is such universal acquiescence in the authority of the general government throughout the portions of country visited
by me that the mere presence of a military force, without regard to numbers, is sufficient to maintain order. The good of
the country and economy require that the force kept in the interior, where there are many freedmen (elsewhere in the Southern states than at forts upon the seacoast no force is necessary), should all be white troops. The reasons for this are obvious without mentioning many of them. The presence of black troops, lately slaves, demoralizes
labor, both by their advice and by furnishing in their camps a resort for the freedmen for long distances around. White troops
generally excite no opposition, and therefore a small number of them can maintain order in a given district. Colored troops
must be kept in bodies sufficient to defend themselves. It is not the thinking men who would use violence toward any class
of troops sent among them by the general government, but the ignorant in some places might; and the late slave seems to be
imbued with the idea that the property of his late master should, by right, belong to him, or at least should have no protection
from the colored soldier. There is danger of collisions being brought on by such causes.

My observations lead me to the conclusion that the citizens of the Southern states are anxious to return to self-government
within the Union as soon as possible; that while reconstructing they want and require protection from the government; that
they are in earnest in wishing to do what they think is required by the government, not humiliating to them as citizens, and
that if such a course were pointed out they would pursue it in good faith. It is to be regretted that there cannot be a greater
commingling, at this time, between the citizens of the two sections, and particularly of those entrusted with the lawmaking
power.

I did not give the operations of the Freedmen's Bureau that attention I would have done if more time had been at my disposal. Conversations on the subject, however, with officers
connected with the bureau lead me to think that in some of the states its affairs have not been conducted with good judgment
or economy, and that the belief widely spread among the freedmen of the Southern states that the lands of their former owners
will, at least in part, be divided among them has come from the agents of this bureau. This belief is seriously interfering
with the willingness of the freedmen to make contracts for the coming year. In some form the Freedmen's Bureau is an absolute
necessity until civil law is established and enforced, securing to the freedmen their rights and full protection. At present,
however, it is independent of the military establishment of the country and seems to be operated by the different agents of
the bureau according to their individual notions. Everywhere General Howard, the able head of the bureau, made friends by
the just and fair instructions and advice he gave; but the complaint in South Carolina was that when he left, things went
on as before.

Many, perhaps the majority, of the agents of the Freedmen's Bureau advise the freedmen that by their own industry they must
expect to live. To this end they endeavor to secure employment for them and to see that both contracting parties comply with
their engagements. In some instances, I am sorry to say, the freedman's mind does not seem to be disabused of the idea that
a freedman has the right to live without care or provision for the future. The effect of the belief in division of lands is
idleness and accumulation in camps, towns, and cities. In such cases I think it will be found that vice and disease will tend
to the extermination or great reduction of the colored race. It cannot be expected that the opinions held by men at the South
for years can be changed in a day, and therefore the freedmen require, for a few years, not only laws to protect them but
the fostering care of those who will give them good counsel and on whom they rely.

The Freedmen's Bureau, being separated from the military establishment of the country requires all the expenses of a separate
organization. One does not necessarily know what the other is doing or what orders they are acting under. It seems to me this
could be corrected by regarding every officer on duty with troops in the Southern states as an agent of the Freedmen's Bureau,
and then have all orders, from the head of the bureau sent through department commanders. This would create a responsibility
that would secure uniformity of action throughout all the South; would insure the orders and instructions from the head of
the bureau being carried out, and would relieve from duty and pay a large number of employees of the government.

When we assembled here on the 4th of March, 1897, there was great anxiety with regard to our currency and credit. None exists
now. Then our Treasury receipts were inadequate to meet the current obligations of the Government. Now they are sufficient
for all public needs, and we have a surplus instead of a deficit. Then I felt constrained to convene the Congress in extraordinary
session to devise revenues to pay the ordinary expenses of the Government. Now I have the satisfaction to announce that the
Congress just closed has reduced taxation in the sum of $41,000,000. Then there was deep solicitude because of the long depression
in our manufacturing, mining, agricultural, and mercantile industries and the consequent distress of our laboring population.
Now every avenue of production is crowded with activity, labor is well employed, and American products find good markets at
home and abroad.

Our diversified productions, however, are increasing in such unprecedented volume as to admonish us of the necessity of still
further enlarging our foreign markets by broader commercial relations. For this purpose reciprocal trade arrangements with
other nations should in liberal spirit be carefully cultivated and promoted.

The national verdict of 1896 has for the most part been executed. Whatever remains unfulfilled is a continuing obligation
resting with undiminished force upon the Executive and the Congress. But fortunate as our condition is, its permanence can
only be assured by sound business methods and strict economy in national administration and legislation. We should not permit
our great prosperity to lead us to reckless ventures in business or profligacy in public expenditures. While the Congress
determines the objects and the sum of appropriations, the officials of the executive departments are responsible for honest
and faithful disbursement, and it should be their constant care to avoid waste and extravagance.

Honesty, capacity, and industry are nowhere more indispensable than in public employment. These should be fundamental requisites
to original appointment and the surest guaranties against removal.

Four years ago we stood on the brink of war without the people knowing it and without any preparation or effort at preparation
for the impending peril. I did all that in honor could be done to avert the war, but without avail. It became inevitable;
and the Congress at its first regular session, without party division, provided money in anticipation of the crisis and in
preparation to meet it. It came. The result was signally favorable to American arms and in the highest degree honorable to
the Government. It imposed upon us obligations from which we cannot escape and from which it would be dishonorable to seek
escape. We are now at peace with the world, and it is my fervent prayer that if differences arise between us and other powers
they may be settled by peaceful arbitration and that hereafter we may be spared the horrors of war.

Intrusted by the people for a second time with the office of President, I enter upon its administration appreciating the great
responsibilities which attach to this renewed honor and commission, promising unreserved devotion on my part to their faithful
discharge and reverently invoking for my guidance the direction and favor of Almighty God. I should shrink from the duties
this day assumed if I did not feel that in their performance I should have the co-operation of the wise and patriotic men
of all parties. It encourages me for the great task which I now undertake to believe that those who voluntarily committed
to me the trust imposed upon the Chief Executive of the Republic will give to me generous support in my duties to "preserve,
protect, and defend, the Constitution of the United States" and to "care that the laws be faithfully executed." The national
purpose is indicated through a national election. It is the constitutional method of ascertaining the public will. When once
it is registered it is a law to us all, and faithful observance should follow its decrees.

Strong hearts and helpful hands are needed, and, fortunately, we have them in every part of our beloved country. We are reunited.
Sectionalism has disappeared. Division on public questions can no longer be traced by the war maps of 1861. These old differences
less and less disturb the judgment. Existing problems demand the thought and quicken the conscience of the country, and the
responsibility for their presence, as well as for their righteous settlement, rests upon us all-no more upon me than upon
you. There are some national questions in the solution of which patriotism should exclude partisanship. Magnifying their difficulties
will not take them off our hands nor facilitate their adjustment. Distrust of the capacity, integrity, and high purposes of
the American people will not be an inspiring theme for future political contests. Dark pictures and gloomy forebodings are
worse than useless. These only becloud, they do not help to point the way of safety and honor. "Hope maketh not ashamed."
The prophets of evil were not the builders of the Republic, nor in its crises since have they saved or served it. The faith
of the fathers was a mighty force in its creation, and the faith of their descendants has wrought its progress and furnished
its defenders. They are obstructionists who despair, and who would destroy confidence in the ability of our people to solve
wisely and for civilization the mighty problems resting upon them. The American people, intrenched in freedom at home, take
their love for it with them wherever they go, and they reject as mistaken and unworthy the doctrine that we lose our own liberties
by securing the enduring foundations of liberty to others. Our institutions will not deteriorate by extension, and our sense
of justice will not abate under tropic suns in distant seas. As heretofore, so hereafter will the nation demonstrate its fitness
to administer any new estate which events devolve upon it, and in the fear of God will "take occasion by the hand and make
the bounds of freedom wider yet." If there are those among us who would make our way more difficult, we must not be disheartened,
but the more earnestly dedicate ourselves to the task upon which we have rightly entered. The path of progress is seldom smooth.
New things are often found hard to do. Our fathers found them so. We find them so. They are inconvenient. They cost us something.
But are we not made better for the effort and sacrifice, and are not those we serve lifted up and blessed?

We will be consoled, too, with the fact that opposition has confronted every onward movement of the Republic from its opening
hour until now, but without success. The Republic has marched on and on, and its step has exalted freedom and humanity. We
are undergoing the same ordeal as did our predecessors nearly a century ago. We are following the course they blazed. They
triumphed. Will their successors falter and plead organic impotency in the nation? Surely after 125 years of achievement for
mankind we will not now surrender our equality with other powers on matters fundamental and essential to nationality. With
no such purpose was the nation created. In no such spirit has it developed its full and independent sovereignty. We adhere
to the principle of equality among ourselves, and by no act of ours will we assign to ourselves a subordinate rank in the
family of nations.

My fellow-citizens, the public events of the past four years have gone into history. They are too near to justify recital.
Some of them were unforeseen; many of them momentous and far-reaching in their consequences to ourselves and our relations
with the rest of the world. The part which the United States bore so honorably in the thrilling scenes in China, while new
to American life, has been in harmony with its true spirit and best traditions, and in dealing with the results its policy
will be that of moderation and fairness.

We face at this moment a most important question that of the future relations of the United States and Cuba. With our near
neighbors we must remain close friends. The declaration of the purposes of this Government in the resolution of April 20,
1898, must be made good. Ever since the evacuation of the island by the army of Spain, the Executive, with all practicable
speed, has been assisting its people in the successive steps necessary to the establishment of a free and independent government
prepared to assume and perform the obligations of international law which now rest upon the United States under the treaty
of Paris. The convention elected by the people to frame a constitution is approaching the completion of its labors. The transfer
of American control to the new government is of such great importance, involving an obligation resulting from our intervention
and the treaty of peace, that I am glad to be advised by the recent act of Congress of the policy which the legislative branch
of the Government deems essential to the best interests of Cuba and the United States. The principles which led to our intervention
require that the fundamental law upon which the new government rests should be adapted to secure a government capable of performing
the duties and discharging the functions of a separate nation, of observing its international obligations of protecting life
and property, insuring order, safety, and liberty, and conforming to the established and historical policy of the United States
in its relation to Cuba.

The peace which we are pledged to leave to the Cuban people must carry with it the guaranties of permanence. We became sponsors
for the pacification of the island, and we remain accountable to the Cubans, no less than to our own country and people, for
the reconstruction of Cuba as a free commonwealth on abiding foundations of right, justice, liberty, and assured order. Our
enfranchisement of the people will not be completed until free Cuba shall "be a reality, not a name; a perfect entity, not
a hasty experiment bearing within itself the elements of failure."

While the treaty of peace with Spain was ratified on the 6th of February, 1899, and ratifications were exchanged nearly two
years ago, the Congress has indicated no form of government for the Philippine Islands. It has, however, provided an army
to enable the Executive to suppress insurrection, restore peace, give security to the inhabitants, and establish the authority
of the United States throughout the archipelago. It has authorized the organization of native troops as auxiliary to the regular
force. It has been advised from time to time of the acts of the military and naval officers in the islands, of my action in
appointing civil commissions, of the instructions with which they were charged, of their duties and powers, of their recommendations,
and of their several acts under executive commission, together with the very complete general information they have submitted.
These reports fully set forth the conditions, past and present, in the islands, and the instructions clearly show the principles
which will guide the Executive until the Congress shall, as it is required to do by the treaty, determine "the civil rights
and political status of the native inhabitants." The Congress having added the sanction of its authority to the powers already
possessed and exercised by the Executive under the Constitution, thereby leaving with the Executive the responsibility for
the government of the Philippines, I shall continue the efforts already begun until order shall be restored throughout the
islands, and as fast as conditions permit will establish local governments, in the formation of which the full co-operation
of the people has been already invited, and when established will encourage the people to administer them. The settled purpose,
long ago proclaimed, to afford the inhabitants of the islands self-government as fast as they were ready for it will be pursued
with earnestness and fidelity. Already something has been accomplished in this direction. The Government's representatives,
civil and military, are doing faithful and noble work in their mission of emancipation and merit the approval and support
of their countrymen. The most liberal terms of amnesty have already been communicated to the insurgents, and the way is still
open for those who have raised their arms against the Government for honorable submission to its authority. Our countrymen
should not be deceived. We are not waging war against the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands. A portion of them are making
war against the United States. By far the greater part of the inhabitants recognize American sovereignty and welcome it as
a guaranty of order and of security for life, property, liberty, freedom of conscience, and the pursuit of happiness. To them
full protection will be given. They shall not be abandoned. We will not leave the destiny of the loyal millions the [of] islands
to the disloyal thousands who are in rebellion against the United States. Order under civil institutions will come as soon
as those who now break the peace shall keep it. Force will not be needed or used when those who make war against us shall
make it no more. May it end without further bloodshed, and there be ushered in the reign of peace to be made permanent by
a government of liberty under law!

As Britain's situation in the war grew more desperate, her ability to pay for needed arms and material rapidly diminished. Following his election to a third
term in November 1940, President Roosevelt determined to find some means of underwriting an Allied victory over Germany without
huge intergovernment loans. In mid-December he hit upon the idea of Lend-Lease; the materials of war would be turned over
to Allied nations now, and would be paid for at the end of the war in goods and services. In a press conference on December
17, Roosevelt outlined in simple terms the underlying premises of the Lend-Lease program. Two weeks later, in an effort to
rally public opinion behind his program, Roosevelt delivered one of his most famous "Fireside Chats"--the "arsenal of democracy"
speech--on December 29, in which he called upon the American people to assume new responsibilities as guardians of the freedom
of the world. A portion of the December 17 press conference is reprinted here.

In the present world situation of course there is absolutely no doubt in the mind of a very overwhelming number of Americans
that the best immediate defense of the United States is the success of Great Britain in defending itself; and that, therefore,
quite aside from our historic and current interest in the survival of democracy in the world as a whole, it is equally important,
from a selfish point of view of American defense, that we should do everything to help the British Empire to defend itself.
. . .

It isn't merely a question of doing things the traditional way; there are lots of other ways of doing them. I am just talking
background, informally; I haven't prepared any of this--I go back to the idea that the one thing necessary for American national
defense is additional productive facilities; and the more we increase those facilities--factories, shipbuilding ways, munition
plants, et cetera, and so on--the stronger American national defense is.

Orders from Great Britain are therefore a tremendous asset to American national defense because they automatically create
additional facilities. I am talking selfishly, from the American point of view--nothing else. Therefore, from the selfish
point of view, that production must be encouraged by us. There are several ways of encouraging it--not just one, as the narrow-minded
fellow I have been talking about might assume, and has assumed. He has assumed that the only way was to repeal certain existing
statutes, like the Neutrality Act and the old Johnson Act and a few other things like that, and then to lend the money to
Great Britain to be spent over here--either lend it through private banking circles, as was done in the earlier days of the
previous war, or make it a loan from this government to the British government.

Well, that is one type of mind that can think only of that method somewhat banal.

There is another one which is also somewhat banal--we may come to it, I don't know--and that is a gift; in other words, for
us to pay for all these munitions, ships, plants, guns, et cetera, and make a gift of them to Great Britain. I am not at all
sure that that is a necessity, and I am not at all sure that Great Britain would care to have a gift from the taxpayers of
the United States. I doubt it very much.

Well, there are other possible ways, and those ways are being explored. All I can do is to speak in very general terms, because
we are in the middle of it. I have been at it now three or four weeks, exploring other methods of continuing the building
up of our productive facilities and continuing automatically the flow of munitions to Great Britain. I will just put it this
way, not as an exclusive alternative method but as one of several other possible methods that might be devised toward that
end.

It is possible--I will put it that way--for the United States to take over British orders and, because they are essentially
the same kind of munitions that we use ourselves, turn them into American orders. We have enough money to do it. And thereupon,
as to such portion of them as the military events of the future determine to be right and proper for us to allow to go to
the other side, either lease or sell the materials, subject to mortgage, to the people on the other side. That would be on
the general theory that it may still prove true that the best defense of Great Britain is the best defense of the United States,
and therefore that these materials would be more useful to the defense of the United States if they were used in Great Britain
than if they were kept in storage here.

Now, what I am trying to do is to eliminate the dollar sign. That is something brand new in the thoughts of practically everybody
in this room, I think--get rid of the silly, foolish old dollar sign.

Well, let me give you an illustration: Suppose my neighbor's home catches fire, and I have a length of garden hose 400 or
500 feet away. If he can take my garden hose and connect it up with his hydrant, I may help him to put out his fire. Now,
what do I do? I don't say to him before that operation, "Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for
it." What is the transaction that goes on? I don't want $15--I want my garden hose back after the fire is over. All right.
If it goes through the fire all right, intact, without any damage to it, he gives it back to me and thanks me very much for
the use of it. But suppose it gets smashed up--holes in it--during the fire; we don't have to have too much formality about
it, but I say to him, "I was glad to lend you that hose; I see I can't use it any more, it's all smashed up." He says, "How
many feet of it were there?" I tell him, "There were 150 feet of it." He says, "All right, I will replace it." Now, if I get
a nice garden hose back, I am in pretty good shape.

In other words, if you lend certain munitions and get the munitions back at the end of the war, if they are intact--haven't
been hurt--you are all right; if they have been damaged or have deteriorated or have been lost completely, it seems to me
you come out pretty well if you have them replaced by the fellow to whom you have lent them.

I can't go into details; and there is no use asking legal questions about how you would do it, because that is the thing that
is now under study; but the thought is that we would take over not all, but a very large number of, future British orders;
and when they came off the line, whether they were planes or guns or something else, we would enter into some kind of arrangement
for their use by the British on the ground that it was the best thing for American defense, with the understanding that when
the show was over, we would get repaid sometime in kind, thereby leaving out the dollar mark in the form of a dollar debt
and substituting for it a gentleman's obligation to repay in kind. I think you all get it.

Elected by the American people to the highest office known to our laws, I appear here to take the oath prescribed by the Constitution,
and, in compliance with a time-honored custom, to address those who are now assembled.

The confidence and respect shown by my countrymen in calling me to be the Chief Magistrate of a Republic holding a high rank
among the nations of the earth have inspired me with feelings of the most profound gratitude; but when I reflect that the
acceptance of the office which their partiality has bestowed imposes the discharge of the most arduous duties and involves
the weightiest obligations, I am conscious that the position which I have been called to fill, though sufficient to satisfy
the loftiest ambition, is surrounded by fearful responsibilities. Happily, however, in the performance of my new duties I
shall not be without able cooperation. The legislative and judicial branches of the Government present prominent examples
of distinguished civil attainments and matured experience, and it shall be my endeavor to call to my assistance in the Executive
Departments individuals whose talents, integrity, and purity of character will furnish ample guaranties for the faithful and
honorable performance of the trusts to be committed to their charge. With such aids and an honest purpose to do whatever is
right, I hope to execute diligently, impartially, and for the best interests of the country the manifold duties devolved upon
me.

In the discharge of these duties my guide will be the Constitution, which I this day swear to "preserve, protect, and defend."
For the interpretation of that instrument I shall look to the decisions of the judicial tribunals established by its authority
and to the practice of the Government under the earlier Presidents, who had so large a share in its formation. To the example
of those illustrious patriots I shall always defer with reverence, and especially to his example who was by so many titles
"the Father of his Country."

To command the Army and Navy of the United States; with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties and to appoint
ambassadors and other officers; to give to Congress information of the state of the Union and recommend such measures as he
shall judge to be necessary; and to take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed-these are the most important functions
intrusted to the President by the Constitution, and it may be expected that I shall briefly indicate the principles which
will control me in their execution.

Chosen by the body of the people under the assurance that my Administration would be devoted to the welfare of the whole country,
and not to the support of any particular section or merely local interest, I this day renew the declarations I have heretofore
made and proclaim my fixed determination to maintain to the extent of my ability the Government in its original purity and
to adopt as the basis of my public policy those great republican doctrines which constitute the strength of our national existence.

In reference to the Army and Navy, lately employed with so much distinction on active service, care shall be taken to insure
the highest condition of efficiency, and in furtherance of that object the military and naval schools, sustained by the liberality
of Congress, shall receive the special attention of the Executive.

As American freemen we can not but sympathize in all efforts to extend the blessings of civil and political liberty, but at
the same time we are warned by the admonitions of history and the voice of our own beloved Washington to abstain from entangling
alliances with foreign nations. In all disputes between conflicting governments it is our interest not less than our duty
to remain strictly neutral, while our geographical position, the genius of our institutions and our people, the advancing
spirit of civilization, and, above all, the dictates of religion direct us to the cultivation of peaceful and friendly relations
with all other powers. It is to be hoped that no international question can now arise which a government confident in its
own strength and resolved to protect its own just rights may not settle by wise negotiation; and it eminently becomes a government
like our own, founded on the morality and intelligence of its citizens and upheld by their affections, to exhaust every resort
of honorable diplomacy before appealing to arms. In the conduct of our foreign relations I shall conform to these views, as
I believe them essential to the best interests and the true honor of the country.

The appointing power vested in the President imposes delicate and onerous duties. So far as it is possible to be informed,
I shall make honesty, capacity, and fidelity indispensable prerequisites to the bestowal of office, and the absence of either
of these qualities shall be deemed sufficient cause for removal.

It shall be my study to recommend such constitutional measures to Congress as may be necessary and proper to secure encouragement
and protection to the great interests of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, to improve our rivers and harbors, to provide
for the speedy extinguishment of the public debt, to enforce a strict accountability on the part of all officers of the Government
and the utmost economy in all public expenditures; but it is for the wisdom of Congress itself, in which all legislative powers
are vested by the Constitution, to regulate these and other matters of domestic policy. I shall look with confidence to the
enlightened patriotism of that body to adopt such measures of conciliation as may harmonize conflicting interests and tend
to perpetuate that Union which should be the paramount object of our hopes and affections. In any action calculated to promote
an object so near the heart of everyone who truly loves his country I will zealously unite with the coordinate branches of
the Government.

In conclusion I congratulate you, my fellow-citizens, upon the high state of prosperity to which the goodness of Divine Providence
has conducted our common country. Let us invoke a continuance of the same protecting care which has led us from small beginnings
to the eminence we this day occupy, and let us seek to deserve that continuance by prudence and moderation in our councils,
by well-directed attempts to assuage the bitterness which too often marks unavoidable differences of opinion, by the promulgation
and practice of just and liberal principles, and by an enlarged patriotism, which shall acknowledge no limits but those of
our own widespread Republic.

James Sullivan, a member of the provincial congress of Massachusetts, corresponded with John Adams in May 1776 when the latter
was a member of the Second Continental Congress. On May 6, Sullivan wrote a letter to Adams in which he discussed the principles
of representation and legislation and called for some alterations in the qualifications for voters. Adams replied in the following
letter of May 26, 1776.

It is certain, in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent
shall we carry this principle? Shall we say that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well
as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation? No, you will say, this is impossible. How, then, does
the right arise in the majority to govern the minority against their will? Whence arises the right of the men to govern the
women without their consent? Whence the right of the old to bind the young without theirs?

But let us first suppose that the whole community, of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community
is assembled. A motion is made, and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises
the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey?

From necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule.

But why exclude women?

You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience in the great businesses of life, and the
hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary
nurture of their children that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of
their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true that men in general, in every society,
who are wholly destitute of property are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too
dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? If this is a fact, if you give to every man who has no property a vote,
will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law? Such is the frailty of the human heart
that very few men who have no property have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man
of property who has attached their minds to his interest.

Upon my word, sir, I have long thought an army a piece of clockwork, and to be governed only by principles and maxims, as
fixed as any in mechanics; and, by all that I have read in the history of mankind, and in authors who have speculated upon
society and government, I am much inclined to think a government must manage a society in the same manner; and that this is
machinery too.

Harrington has shown that power always follows property. This I believe to be as infallible a maxim in politics, as that action
and reaction are equal is in mechanics. Nay, I believe we may advance one step farther, and affirm that the balance of power
in a society accompanies the balance of property in land. The only possible way, then, of preserving the balance of power
on the side of equal liberty and public virtue is to make the acquisition of land easy to every member of society; to make
a division of the land into small quantities, so that the multitude may be possessed of landed estates. If the multitude is
possessed of the balance of real estate, the multitude will have the balance of power, and in that case the multitude will
take care of the liberty, virtue, and interest of the multitude in all acts of government. I believe these principles have
been felt, if not understood, in the Massachusetts Bay from the beginning; and therefore I should think that wisdom and policy
would dictate in these times to be very cautious of making alterations. Our people have never been very rigid in scrutinizing
into the qualifications of voters, and I presume they will not now begin to be so. But I would not advise them to make any
alteration in the laws, at present, respecting the qualifications of voters.

Your idea that those laws which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect
those who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just. But so they do women as well as men; children as well
as adults. What reason should there be for excluding a man of twenty years eleven months and twenty-seven days old from a
vote, when you admit one who is twenty-one? The reason is you must fix upon some period in life when the understanding and
will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public. Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some
certain quantity of property as a qualification?

The same reasoning which will induce you to admit all men who have no property to vote with those who have, for those laws
which affect the person, will prove that you ought to admit women and children; for, generally speaking, women and children
have as good judgments, and as independent minds, as those men who are wholly destitute of property; these last being to all
intents and purposes as much dependent upon others who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their
husbands, or children on their parents.

As to your idea of proportioning the votes of men, in money matters, to the property they hold, it is utterly impracticable.
There is no possible way of ascertaining, at any one time, how much every man in a community is worth; and if there was, so
fluctuating is trade and property that this state of it would change in half an hour. The property of the whole community
is shifting every hour, and no record can be kept of the changes.

Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case as it happens,
nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general comprehensive regulations for cases and persons.
The only question is, which general rule will accommodate most cases and most persons.

Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting
to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end of it. New claims will arise; women will demand a vote; lads from
twelve to twenty-one will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing will demand an equal
voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions and prostrate all ranks to one
common level.

Source: The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, with a Life of the Author, Charles Francis Adams, ed., 1850-1856, 10 vols.

On Monday evening, August 12, 1974, President Ford addressed a joint session of Congress. Although his remarks contained few
legislative proposals, they did set the tone of his administration by urging fiscal restraint to fight inflation and by suggesting
the willingness to veto any measures he deemed too costly. The purpose of the message was primarily to acquaint the American
people with their new President.

My fellow Americans, we have a lot of work to do. My former colleagues, you and I have a lot of work to do. Let's get on with
it.

Needless to say, I am deeply grateful for the wonderfully warm welcome. I can never express my gratitude adequately.

I am not here to make an inaugural address. The Nation needs action, not words. Nor will this be a formal report of the State
of the Union. God willing, I will have at least three more chances to do that.

It is good to be back in the People's House. But this cannot be a real homecoming. Under the Constitution, I now belong to
the executive branch. The Supreme Court has even ruled that I am the executive branch, head, heart, and hand.

With due respect to the learned Justices--and I greatly respect the judiciary--part of my heart will always be here on Capitol
Hill. I know well the co-equal role of the Congress in our constitutional process. I love the House of Representatives.

I revere the traditions of the Senate despite my too-short internship in that great body. As President, within the limits
of basic principles, my motto toward the Congress is communication, conciliation, compromise, and cooperation.

This Congress, unless it has changed, I am confident, will be my working partner as well as my most constructive critic. I
am not asking for conformity. I am dedicated to the two-party system, and you know which party I belong to.

I do not want a honeymoon with you. I want a good marriage.

I want progress, and I want problem-solving which requires my best efforts and also your best efforts.

I have no need to learn how Congress speaks for the people. As President, I intend to listen.

But I also intend to listen to the people themselves--all the people--as I promised last Friday. I want to be sure that we
are all tuned in to the real voice of America.

My Administration starts off by seeking unity in diversity. My office door has always been open, and that is how it is going
to be at the White House. Yes, Congressmen will be welcomed--if you don't overdo it. [Laughter]

The first seven words of the Constitution and the most important are these: We, the people of the United States. We, the people,
ordained and established the Constitution and reserved to themselves all powers not granted to Federal and State government.
I respect and will always be conscious of that fundamental rule of freedom.

Only 8 months ago, when I last stood here, I told you I was a Ford, not a Lincoln. Tonight I say I am still a Ford, but I
am not a Model T.

I do have some old-fashioned ideas, however. I believe in the very basic decency and fairness of America. I believe in the
integrity and patriotism of the Congress. And while I am aware of the House rule that no one ever speaks to the galleries,
I believe in the first amendment and the absolute necessity of a free press.

But I also believe that over two centuries since the First Continental Congress was convened, the direction of our Nation's
movement has been forward. I am here to confess that in my first campaign for President--of my senior class in South High
School in Grand Rapids, Michigan--I headed the Progressive Party ticket, and lost. Maybe that is why I became a Republican.
[Laughter]

Now I ask you to join with me in getting this country revved up and moving. . . .

The first specific request by the Ford Administration is not to Congress but to the voters in the upcoming November elections.
It is this, very simply: Support your candidates, Congressmen and Senators, Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals,
who consistently vote for tough decisions to cut the cost of government, restrain Federal spending, and bring inflation under
control.

I applaud the initiatives Congress has already taken. The only fault I find with the Joint Economic Committee's study on inflation,
authorized last week, is that we need its expert findings in 6 weeks instead of 6 months.

A month ago, the distinguished majority leader of the United States Senate asked the White House to convene an economic conference
of Members of Congress, the President's economic consultants, and some of the best economic brains from labor, industry, and
agriculture.

Later, this was perfected by resolution to assemble a domestic summit meeting to devise a bipartisan action for stability
and growth in the American economy. Neither I nor my staff have much time right now for letterwriting. So I will respond.
I accept the suggestion, and I will personally preside.

Furthermore, I propose that this summit meeting be held at an early date, in full view of the American public. They are as
anxious as we are to get the right answers.

My first priority is to work with you to bring inflation under control. Inflation is domestic enemy number one. To restore
economic confidence, the Government in Washington must provide some leadership. It does no good to blame the public for spending
too much when the Government is spending too much.

I began to put my Administration's own economic house in order starting last Friday.

I instructed my Cabinet officers and Counsellors and my White House Staff to make fiscal restraint their first order of business,
and to save every taxpayer's dollar the safety and genuine welfare of our great Nation will permit. Some economic activities
will be affected more by monetary and fiscal restraint than other activities. Good government clearly requires that we tend
to the economic problems facing our country in a spirit of equity to all of our citizens in all segments of our society.

Tonight, obviously, is no time to threaten you with vetoes. But I do have the last recourse, and I am a veteran of many a
veto fight right here in this great chamber. Can't we do a better job by reasonable compromise? I hope we can.

Minutes after I took the Presidential oath, the joint leadership of Congress told me at the White House they would go more
than half way to meet me. This was confirmed in your unanimous concurrent resolution of cooperation, for which I am deeply
grateful. If, for my part, I go more than half way to meet the Congress, maybe we can find a much larger area of national
agreement.

I bring no legislative shopping list here this evening. I will deal with specifics in future messages and talks with you,
but here are a few examples of how seriously I feel about what we must do together.

Last week, the Congress passed the elementary and secondary education bill, and I found it on my desk. Any reservations I
might have about some of its provisions--and I do have--fade in comparison to the urgent needs of America for quality education.
I will sign it in a few days.

I must be frank. In implementing its provisions, I will oppose excessive funding during this inflationary crisis.

As Vice President, I studied various proposals for better health care financing. I saw them coming closer together and urged
my friends in the Congress and in the Administration to sit down and sweat out a sound compromise. The Comprehensive Health
Insurance Plan goes a long ways toward providing early relief to people who are sick.

Why don't we write--and I ask this with the greatest spirit of cooperation--why don't we write a good health bill on the statute
books in 1974, before this Congress adjourns?

The economy of our country is critically dependent on how we interact with the economies of other countries. It is little
comfort that our inflation is only a part of a worldwide problem or that American families need less of their paychecks for
groceries than most of our foreign friends.

As one of the building blocks of peace, we have taken the lead in working toward a more open and a more equitable world economic
system. A new round of international trade negotiations started last September among 105 nations in Tokyo. The others are
waiting for the United States Congress to grant the necessary authority to the executive branch to proceed.

With modifications, the trade reform bill passed by the House last year would do a good job. I understand good progress has
been made in the Senate Committee on Finance. But I am optimistic, as always, that the Senate will pass an acceptable bill
quickly as a key part of our joint prosperity campaign.

I am determined to expedite other international economic plans. We will be working together with other nations to find better
ways to prevent shortages of food and fuel. We must not let last winter's energy crisis happen again. I will push Project
Independence for our own good and the good of others. In that, too, I will need your help.

Successful foreign policy is an extension of the hopes of the whole American people for a world of peace and orderly reform
and orderly freedom. So, I would say a few words to our distinguished guests from the governments of other nations where,
as at home, it is my determination to deal openly with allies and adversaries. Over the past 5 1/2 years in Congress and as
Vice President, I have fully supported the outstanding foreign policy of President Nixon. This policy I intend to continue.
. . .

Our job will not be easy. In promising continuity, I cannot promise simplicity. The problems and challenges of the world remain
complex and difficult. But we have set out on a path of reason, of fairness, and we will continue on it.

As guideposts on that path, I offer the following:

--To our allies of a generation in the Atlantic community and Japan, I pledge continuity in the loyal collaboration on our
many mutual endeavors.

--To our friends and allies in this hemisphere, I pledge continuity in the deepening dialog to define renewed relationships
of equality and justice.

--To our allies and friends in Asia, I pledge a continuity in our support for their security, independence, and economic development.
In Indochina, we are determined to see the observance of the Paris agreement on Vietnam and the cease-fire and negotiated
settlement in Laos. We hope to see an early compromise settlement in Cambodia.

--To the Soviet Union, I pledge continuity in our commitment to the course of the past 3 years. To our two peoples, and to
all mankind, we owe a continued effort to live and, where possible, to work together in peace; for in a thermonuclear age
there can be no alternative to a positive and peaceful relationship between our nations.

--To the People's Republic of China, whose legendary hospitality I enjoyed, I pledge continuity in our commitment to the principles
of the Shanghai communiqué. The new relationship built on those principles has demonstrated that it serves serious and objective
mutual interests and has become an enduring feature of the world scene.

--To the nations in the Middle East, I pledge continuity in our vigorous efforts to advance the progress which has brought
hopes of peace to that region after 25 years as a hotbed of war. We shall carry out our promise to promote continuing negotiations
among all parties for a complete, just, and lasting settlement.

--To all nations, I pledge continuity in seeking a common global goal: a stable international structure of trade and finance
which reflects the interdependence of all peoples.

--To the entire international community--to the United Nations, to the world's nonaligned nations, and to all others--I pledge
continuity in our dedication to the humane goals which throughout our history have been so much of America's contribution
to mankind.

So long as the peoples of the world have confidence in our purposes and faith in our word, the age-old vision of peace on
earth will grow brighter.

We have assembled to repeat the public ceremonial, begun by Washington, observed by all my predecessors, and now a time-honored
custom, which marks the commencement of a new term of the Presidential office. Called to the duties of this great trust, I
proceed, in compliance with usage, to announce some of the leading principles, on the subjects that now chiefly engage the
public attention, by which it is my desire to be guided in the discharge of those duties. I shall not undertake to lay down
irrevocably principles or measures of administration, but rather to speak of the motives which should animate us, and to suggest
certain important ends to be attained in accordance with our institutions and essential to the welfare of our country.

At the outset of the discussions which preceded the recent Presidential election it seemed to me fitting that I should fully
make known my sentiments in regard to several of the important questions which then appeared to demand the consideration of
the country. Following the example, and in part adopting the language, of one of my predecessors, I wish now, when every motive
for misrepresentation has passed away, to repeat what was said before the election, trusting that my countrymen will candidly
weigh and understand it, and that they will feel assured that the sentiments declared in accepting the nomination for the
Presidency will be the standard of my conduct in the path before me, charged, as I now am, with the grave and difficult task
of carrying them out in the practical administration of the Government so far as depends, under the Constitution and laws
on the Chief Executive of the nation.

The permanent pacification of the country upon such principles and by such measures as will secure the complete protection
of all its citizens in the free enjoyment of all their constitutional rights is now the one subject in our public affairs
which all thoughtful and patriotic citizens regard as of supreme importance.

Many of the calamitous efforts of the tremendous revolution which has passed over the Southern States still remain. The immeasurable
benefits which will surely follow, sooner or later, the hearty and generous acceptance of the legitimate results of that revolution
have not yet been realized. Difficult and embarrassing questions meet us at the threshold of this subject. The people of those
States are still impoverished, and the inestimable blessing of wise, honest, and peaceful local self-government is not fully
enjoyed. Whatever difference of opinion may exist as to the cause of this condition of things, the fact is clear that in the
progress of events the time has come when such government is the imperative necessity required by all the varied interests,
public and private, of those States. But it must not be forgotten that only a local government which recognizes and maintains
inviolate the rights of all is a true self-government.

With respect to the two distinct races whose peculiar relations to each other have brought upon us the deplorable complications
and perplexities which exist in those States, it must be a government which guards the interests of both races carefully and
equally. It must be a government which submits loyally and heartily to the Constitution and the laws-the laws of the nation
and the laws of the States themselves-accepting and obeying faithfully the whole Constitution as it is.

Resting upon this sure and substantial foundation, the superstructure of beneficent local governments can be built up, and
not otherwise. In furtherance of such obedience to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, and in behalf of all that
its attainment implies, all so-called party interests lose their apparent importance, and party lines may well be permitted
to fade into insignificance. The question we have to consider for the immediate welfare of those States of the Union is the
question of government or no government; of social order and all the peaceful industries and the happiness that belongs to
it, or a return to barbarism. It is a question in which every citizen of the nation is deeply interested, and with respect
to which we ought not to be, in a partisan sense, either Republicans or Democrats, but fellow-citizens and fellowmen, to whom
the interests of a common country and a common humanity are dear.

The sweeping revolution of the entire labor system of a large portion of our country and the advance of 4,000,000 people from
a condition of servitude to that of citizenship, upon an equal footing with their former masters, could not occur without
presenting problems of the gravest moment, to be dealt with by the emancipated race, by their former masters, and by the General
Government, the author of the act of emancipation. That it was a wise, just, and providential act, fraught with good for all
concerned, is not generally conceded throughout the country. That a moral obligation rests upon the National Government to
employ its constitutional power and influence to establish the rights of the people it has emancipated, and to protect them
in the enjoyment of those rights when they are infringed or assailed, is also generally admitted.

The evils which afflict the Southern States can only be removed or remedied by the united and harmonious efforts of both races,
actuated by motives of mutual sympathy and regard; and while in duty bound and fully determined to protect the rights of all
by every constitutional means at the disposal of my Administration, I am sincerely anxious to use every legitimate influence
in favor of honest and efficient local self-government as the true resource of those States for the promotion of the contentment
and prosperity of their citizens. In the effort I shall make to accomplish this purpose I ask the cordial cooperation of all
who cherish an interest in the welfare of the country, trusting that party ties and the prejudice of race will be freely surrendered
in behalf of the great purpose to be accomplished. In the important work of restoring the South it is not the political situation
alone that merits attention. The material development of that section of the country has been arrested by the social and political
revolution through which it has passed, and now needs and deserves the considerate care of the National Government within
the just limits prescribed by the Constitution and wise public economy.

But at the basis of all prosperity, for that as well as for every other part of the country, lies the improvement of the intellectual
and moral condition of the people. Universal suffrage should rest upon universal education. To this end, liberal and permanent
provision should be made for the support of free schools by the State governments, and, if need be, supplemented by legitimate
aid from national authority.

Let me assure my countrymen of the Southern States that it is my earnest desire to regard and promote their truest interest-the
interests of the white and of the colored people both and equally-and to put forth my best efforts in behalf of a civil policy
which will forever wipe out in our political affairs the color line and the distinction between North and South, to the end
that we may have not merely a united North or a united South, but a united country.

I ask the attention of the public to the paramount necessity of reform in our civil service-a reform not merely as to certain
abuses and practices of so-called official patronage which have come to have the sanction of usage in the several Departments
of our Government, but a change in the system of appointment itself; a reform that shall be thorough, radical, and complete;
a return to the principles and practices of the founders of the Government. They neither expected nor desired from public
officers any partisan service. They meant that public officers should owe their whole service to the Government and to the
people. They meant that the officer should be secure in his tenure as long as his personal character remained untarnished
and the performance of his duties satisfactory. They held that appointments to office were not to be made nor expected merely
as rewards for partisan services, nor merely on the nomination of members of Congress, as being entitled in any respect to
the control of such appointments.

The fact that both the great political parties of the country, in declaring their principles prior to the election, gave a
prominent place to the subject of reform of our civil service, recognizing and strongly urging its necessity, in terms almost
identical in their specific import with those I have here employed, must be accepted as a conclusive argument in behalf of
these measures. It must be regarded as the expression of the united voice and will of the whole country upon this subject,
and both political parties are virtually pledged to give it their unreserved support.

The President of the United States of necessity owes his election to office to the suffrage and zealous labors of a political
party, the members of which cherish with ardor and regard as of essential importance the principles of their party organization;
but he should strive to be always mindful of the fact that he serves his party best who serves the country best.

In furtherance of the reform we seek, and in other important respects a change of great importance, I recommend an amendment
to the Constitution prescribing a term of six years for the Presidential office and forbidding a reelection.

With respect to the financial condition of the country, I shall not attempt an extended history of the embarrassment and prostration
which we have suffered during the past three years. The depression in all our varied commercial and manufacturing interests
throughout the country, which began in September, 1873, still continues. It is very gratifying, however, to be able to say
that there are indications all around us of a coming change to prosperous times.

Upon the currency question, intimately connected, as it is, with this topic, I may be permitted to repeat here the statement
made in my letter of acceptance, that in my judgment the feeling of uncertainty inseparable from an irredeemable paper currency,
with its fluctuation of values, is one of the greatest obstacles to a return to prosperous times. The only safe paper currency
is one which rests upon a coin basis and is at all times and promptly convertible into coin.

I adhere to the views heretofore expressed by me in favor of Congressional legislation in behalf of an early resumption of
specie payments, and I am satisfied not only that this is wise, but that the interests, as well as the public sentiment, of
the country imperatively demand it.

Passing from these remarks upon the condition of our own country to consider our relations with other lands, we are reminded
by the international complications abroad, threatening the peace of Europe, that our traditional rule of noninterference in
the affairs of foreign nations has proved of great value in past times and ought to be strictly observed.

The policy inaugurated by my honored predecessor, President Grant, of submitting to arbitration grave questions in dispute
between ourselves and foreign powers points to a new, and incomparably the best, instrumentality for the preservation of peace,
and will, as I believe, become a beneficent example of the course to be pursued in similar emergencies by other nations.

If, unhappily, questions of difference should at any time during the period of my Administration arise between the United
States and any foreign government, it will certainly be my disposition and my hope to aid in their settlement in the same
peaceful and honorable way, thus securing to our country the great blessings of peace and mutual good offices with all the
nations of the world.

Fellow-citizens, we have reached the close of a political contest marked by the excitement which usually attends the contests
between great political parties whose members espouse and advocate with earnest faith their respective creeds. The circumstances
were, perhaps, in no respect extraordinary save in the closeness and the consequent uncertainty of the result.

For the first time in the history of the country it has been deemed best, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case,
that the objections and questions in dispute with reference to the counting of the electoral votes should be referred to the
decision of a tribunal appointed for this purpose.

That tribunal-established by law for this sole purpose; its members, all of them, men of long-established reputation for integrity
and intelligence, and, with the exception of those who are also members of the supreme judiciary, chosen equally from both
political parties; its deliberations enlightened by the research and the arguments of able counsel-was entitled to the fullest
confidence of the American people. Its decisions have been patiently waited for, and accepted as legally conclusive by the
general judgment of the public. For the present, opinion will widely vary as to the wisdom of the several conclusions announced
by that tribunal. This is to be anticipated in every instance where matters of dispute are made the subject of arbitration
under the forms of law. Human judgment is never unerring, and is rarely regarded as otherwise than wrong by the unsuccessful
party in the contest.

The fact that two great political parties have in this way settled a dispute in regard to which good men differ as to the
facts and the law no less than as to the proper course to be pursued in solving the question in controversy is an occasion
for general rejoicing.

Upon one point there is entire unanimity in public sentiment-that conflicting claims to the Presidency must be amicably and
peaceably adjusted, and that when so adjusted the general acquiescence of the nation ought surely to follow.

It has been reserved for a government of the people, where the right of suffrage is universal, to give to the world the first
example in history of a great nation, in the midst of the struggle of opposing parties for power, hushing its party tumults
to yield the issue of the contest to adjustment according to the forms of law.

Looking for the guidance of that Divine Hand by which the destinies of nations and individuals are shaped, I call upon you,
Senators, Representatives, judges, fellow-citizens, here and everywhere, to unite with me in an earnest effort to secure to
our country the blessings, not only of material prosperity, but of justice, peace, and union-a union depending not upon the
constraint of force, but upon the loving devotion of a free people; "and that all things may be so ordered and settled upon
the best and surest foundations that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established among
us for all generations."

The speech by Abraham Lincoln to the Republican State Convention at Springfield, Illinois, on June 16, 1858, launched his
campaign for the U.S. Senate seat held by Stephen A. Douglas. Douglas replied less than a month later at Chicago, after which the two men sparred in their famous series of debates. Lincoln's
speech was considered radical at the time and potentially dangerous. His former law partner, William H. Herndon, predicted,
however, that the Republicans would eventually make him President. The challenge of Lincoln's "House Divided" speech was met
by Douglas in his July 9 Chicago address, which began his campaign for reelection. Douglas was committed to the idea of "popular
sovereignty" in opposition to the Republicans, who wished to exclude slavery from the territories. He also had to satisfy the Southern wing in his own Democratic Party, which wanted unlimited extension
of slavery.

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention:

If we could first know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it. We are
now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to
slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased but has constantly augmented.
In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot
stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved;
I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the
belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful
in all the states, old as well as new, North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

Let anyone who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination -- piece of machinery, so to speak
-- compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider, not only what work the machinery is
adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also let him study the history of its construction and trace, if he can, or rather
fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects, from the beginning.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the states by state constitutions and from most of the national
territory by congressional prohibition. Four days later commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that congressional
prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery and was the first point gained.

But, so far, Congress only had acted; and an endorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained and give
chance for more.

This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter
sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self-government," which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful
basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska Bill itself, in the language which follows:

It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom,
but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject
only to the Constitution of the United States.

Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "squatter sovereignty" and "sacred right of self-government." "But,"
said opposition members, "let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the territory may exclude slavery."
"Not we," said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.

While the Nebraska Bill was passing through Congress, a law case, involving the question of a Negro's freedom, by reason of
his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free state and then into a territory covered by the congressional prohibition,
and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the United States Circuit Court for the district of Missouri;
and both Nebraska Bill and lawsuit were brought to a decision in the same month of May 1854. The Negro's name was Dred Scott, which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. Before the then next presidential election, the law case
came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election.
Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska Bill
to state his opinion whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter
answers: "That is a question for the Supreme Court."

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the endorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained.
The endorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly 400,000 votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly
reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon
the people the weight and authority of the endorsement. The Supreme Court met again, did not announce their decision, but
ordered a reargument.

The presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the Court; but the incoming President, in his inaugural address,
fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision.

The reputed author of the Nebraska Bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital endorsing the Dred Scott
decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman
letter to endorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been
entertained!

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska Bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton constitution was or was not in any just sense made by the people of Kansas; and in that quarrel the
latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration, that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other
than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind -- the principle for which he declares he has
suffered so much and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle! If he has any parental feeling,
well may he cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine.

Under the Dred Scott decision, "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding;
like the mold at the foundry, served through one blast and fell back into loose sand; helped to carry an election and then
was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans against the Lecompton constitution involves nothing
of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point -- the right of a people to make their own constitution
-- upon which he and the Republicans have never differed.

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas' "care not" policy, constitute the piece
of machinery in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The working points of that machinery are:

First, that no Negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave can ever be a citizen of any state
in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the Negro,
in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution which declares that "the citizens
of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

Second, that, "subject to the Constitution of the United States," neither Congress nor a territorial legislature can exclude
slavery from any United States territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the territories with
slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all
the future.

Third, that whether the holding a Negro in actual slavery in a free state makes him free, as against the holder, the United
States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave state the Negro may be forced into
by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and apparently endorsed
by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with
Dred Scott in the free state of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or 1,000 slaves, in Illinois
or in any other free state.

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mold
public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly
where we now are; and partially, also, whither we are tending.

It will throw additional light on the latter to go back and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated.
Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left
"perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see.
Plainly enough, now, it was an exactly fitted niche for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in and declare the perfect
freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all.

Why was the amendment expressly declaring the right of the people voted down? Plainly enough, now, the adoption of it would
have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the Court decision held up? Why even a senator's individual opinion
withheld till after the presidential election? Plainly enough, now, the speaking out then would have damaged the "perfectly
free" argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the endorsement? Why
the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like
the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him when it is dreaded that he may give the rider
a fall. And why the hasty after-endorsement of the decision by the President and others?

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers,
different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen -- Stephen,
Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance -- and when we see these timbers joined together and see they exactly make the frame
of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces
exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding, or, if a single
piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in -- in such a case,
we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning,
and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

I ask you to share with me today the majesty of this moment. In the orderly transfer of power, we celebrate the unity that
keeps us free.

Each moment in history is a fleeting time, precious and unique. But some stand out as moments of beginning, in which courses
are set that shape decades or centuries.

This can be such a moment.

Forces now are converging that make possible, for the first time, the hope that many of man's deepest aspirations can at last
be realized. The spiraling pace of change allows us to contemplate, within our own lifetime, advances that once would have
taken centuries.

In throwing wide the horizons of space, we have discovered new horizons on earth.

For the first time, because the people of the world want peace, and the leaders of the world are afraid of war, the times
are on the side of peace.

Eight years from now America will celebrate its 200th anniversary as a nation. Within the lifetime of most people now living,
mankind will celebrate that great new year which comes only once in a thousand years-the beginning of the third millennium.

What kind of nation we will be, what kind of world we will live in, whether we shape the future in the image of our hopes,
is ours to determine by our actions and our choices.

The greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker. This honor now beckons America-the chance to help lead the
world at last out of the valley of turmoil, and onto that high ground of peace that man has dreamed of since the dawn of civilization.

If we succeed, generations to come will say of us now living that we mastered our moment, that we helped make the world safe
for mankind.

This is our summons to greatness.

I believe the American people are ready to answer this call.

The second third of this century has been a time of proud achievement. We have made enormous strides in science and industry
and agriculture. We have shared our wealth more broadly than ever. We have learned at last to manage a modern economy to assure
its continued growth.

We have given freedom new reach, and we have begun to make its promise real for black as well as for white.

We see the hope of tomorrow in the youth of today. I know America's youth. I believe in them. We can be proud that they are
better educated, more committed, more passionately driven by conscience than any generation in our history.

No people has ever been so close to the achievement of a just and abundant society, or so possessed of the will to achieve
it. Because our strengths are so great, we can afford to appraise our weaknesses with candor and to approach them with hope.

Standing in this same place a third of a century ago, Franklin Delano Roosevelt addressed a Nation ravaged by depression and
gripped in fear. He could say in surveying the Nation's troubles: "They concern, thank God, only material things."

Our crisis today is the reverse.

We have found ourselves rich in goods, but ragged in spirit; reaching with magnificent precision for the moon, but falling
into raucous discord on earth.

We are caught in war, wanting peace. We are torn by division, wanting unity. We see around us empty lives, wanting fulfillment.
We see tasks that need doing, waiting for hands to do them.

To a crisis of the spirit, we need an answer of the spirit.

To find that answer, we need only look within ourselves.

When we listen to "the better angels of our nature," we find that they celebrate the simple things, the basic things-such
as goodness, decency, love, kindness.

Greatness comes in simple trappings.

The simple things are the ones most needed today if we are to surmount what divides us, and cement what unites us.

To lower our voices would be a simple thing.

In these difficult years, America has suffered from a fever of words; from inflated rhetoric that promises more than it can
deliver; from angry rhetoric that fans discontents into hatreds; from bombastic rhetoric that postures instead of persuading.

We cannot learn from one another until we stop shouting at one another-until we speak quietly enough so that our words can
be heard as well as our voices.

For its part, government will listen. We will strive to listen in new ways-to the voices of quiet anguish, the voices that
speak without words, the voices of the heart-to the injured voices, the anxious voices, the voices that have despaired of
being heard.

Those who have been left out, we will try to bring in.

Those left behind, we will help to catch up.

For all of our people, we will set as our goal the decent order that makes progress possible and our lives secure.

As we reach toward our hopes, our task is to build on what has gone before-not turning away from the old, but turning toward
the new.

In this past third of a century, government has passed more laws, spent more money, initiated more programs, than in all our
previous history.

In pursuing our goals of full employment, better housing, excellence in education; in rebuilding our cities and improving
our rural areas; in protecting our environment and enhancing the quality of life-in all these and more, we will and must press
urgently forward.

We shall plan now for the day when our wealth can be transferred from the destruction of war abroad to the urgent needs of
our people at home.

The American dream does not come to those who fall asleep.

But we are approaching the limits of what government alone can do.

Our greatest need now is to reach beyond government, and to enlist the legions of the concerned and the committed.

What has to be done, has to be done by government and people together or it will not be done at all. The lesson of past agony
is that without the people we can do nothing; with the people we can do everything.

To match the magnitude of our tasks, we need the energies of our people-enlisted not only in grand enterprises, but more importantly
in those small, splendid efforts that make headlines in the neighborhood newspaper instead of the national journal.

With these, we can build a great cathedral of the spirit-each of us raising it one stone at a time, as he reaches out to his
neighbor, helping, caring, doing.

I do not offer a life of uninspiring ease. I do not call for a life of grim sacrifice. I ask you to join in a high adventure-one
as rich as humanity itself, and as exciting as the times we live in.

The essence of freedom is that each of us shares in the shaping of his own destiny.

Until he has been part of a cause larger than himself, no man is truly whole.

The way to fulfillment is in the use of our talents; we achieve nobility in the spirit that inspires that use.

As we measure what can be done, we shall promise only what we know we can produce, but as we chart our goals we shall be lifted
by our dreams.

No man can be fully free while his neighbor is not. To go forward at all is to go forward together.

This means black and white together, as one nation, not two. The laws have caught up with our conscience. What remains is
to give life to what is in the law: to ensure at last that as all are born equal in dignity before God, all are born equal
in dignity before man.

As we learn to go forward together at home, let us also seek to go forward together with all mankind.

Let us take as our goal: where peace is unknown, make it welcome; where peace is fragile, make it strong; where peace is temporary,
make it permanent.

After a period of confrontation, we are entering an era of negotiation.

Let all nations know that during this administration our lines of communication will be open.

We seek an open world-open to ideas, open to the exchange of goods and people-a world in which no people, great or small,
will live in angry isolation.

We cannot expect to make everyone our friend, but we can try to make no one our enemy.

Those who would be our adversaries, we invite to a peaceful competition-not in conquering territory or extending dominion,
but in enriching the life of man.

As we explore the reaches of space, let us go to the new worlds together-not as new worlds to be conquered, but as a new adventure
to be shared.

With those who are willing to join, let us cooperate to reduce the burden of arms, to strengthen the structure of peace, to
lift up the poor and the hungry.

But to all those who would be tempted by weakness, let us leave no doubt that we will be as strong as we need to be for as
long as we need to be.

Over the past twenty years, since I first came to this Capital as a freshman Congressman, I have visited most of the nations
of the world.

I have come to know the leaders of the world, and the great forces, the hatreds, the fears that divide the world.

I know that peace does not come through wishing for it-that there is no substitute for days and even years of patient and
prolonged diplomacy.

I also know the people of the world.

I have seen the hunger of a homeless child, the pain of a man wounded in battle, the grief of a mother who has lost her son.
I know these have no ideology, no race.

I know America. I know the heart of America is good.

I speak from my own heart, and the heart of my country, the deep concern we have for those who suffer, and those who sorrow.

I have taken an oath today in the presence of God and my countrymen to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
To that oath I now add this sacred commitment: I shall consecrate my office, my energies, and all the wisdom I can summon,
to the cause of peace among nations.

Let this message be heard by strong and weak alike:

The peace we seek to win is not victory over any other people, but the peace that comes "with healing in its wings"; with
compassion for those who have suffered; with understanding for those who have opposed us; with the opportunity for all the
peoples of this earth to choose their own destiny.

Only a few short weeks ago, we shared the glory of man's first sight of the world as God sees it, as a single sphere reflecting
light in the darkness.

As the Apollo astronauts flew over the moon's gray surface on Christmas Eve, they spoke to us of the beauty of earth-and in
that voice so clear across the lunar distance, we heard them invoke God's blessing on its goodness.

In that moment, their view from the moon moved poet Archibald MacLeish to write:

"To see the earth as it truly is, small and blue and beautiful in that eternal silence where it floats, is to see ourselves
as riders on the earth together, brothers on that bright loveliness in the eternal cold-brothers who know now they are truly
brothers."

In that moment of surpassing technological triumph, men turned their thoughts toward home and humanity-seeing in that far
perspective that man's destiny on earth is not divisible; telling us that however far we reach into the cosmos, our destiny
lies not in the stars but on Earth itself, in our own hands, in our own hearts.

We have endured a long night of the American spirit. But as our eyes catch the dimness of the first rays of dawn, let us not
curse the remaining dark. Let us gather the light.

Our destiny offers, not the cup of despair, but the chalice of opportunity. So let us seize it, not in fear, but in gladness-and,
"riders on the earth together," let us go forward, firm in our faith, steadfast in our purpose, cautious of the dangers; but
sustained by our confidence in the will of God and the promise of man.

Pierre S. du Pont de Nemours, French economist and father of the founder of the Du Pont powder works in Wilmington, Delaware, was an early supporter of
the French Revolution and a persistent worker in the cause of good relations between France and the United States. He had
dealings with Jefferson from the beginning of the latter's presidency, and corresponded with him for many years. In the spring
of 1816, Du Pont was engaged in writing constitutions for several new South American republics, and he asked his friend's
opinion of representative government. In his reply, written April 24, 1816, Jefferson took the opportunity to expound on his
favorite subject, Republicanism, and explained that in a good government, the enlightened and educated, "the natural aristocracy,"
as he called them, should rule--but not without a check by the people.

Distinguishing between the structure of the government and the moral principles on which you prescribe its administration,
with the latter we concur cordially, with the former we should not. We of the United States, you know, are constitutionally
and conscientiously democrats. We consider society as one of the natural wants with which man has been created; that he has
been endowed with faculties and qualities to effect its satisfaction by concurrence of others having the same want; that when,
by the exercise of these faculties, he has procured a state of society, it is one of his acquisitions which he has a right
to regulate and control, jointly indeed with all those who have concurred in the procurement, whom he cannot exclude from
its use or direction more than they him. We think experience has proved it safer for the mass of individuals composing the
society to reserve to themselves personally the exercise of all rightful powers to which they are competent, and to delegate
those to which they are not competent to deputies named, and removable for unfaithful conduct, by themselves immediately.

Hence, with us, the people (by which is meant the mass of individuals composing the society) being competent to judge of the
facts occurring in ordinary life, they have retained the functions of judges of facts under the name of jurors; but being
unqualified for the management of affairs requiring intelligence above the common level, yet competent judges of human character,
they chose for their management representatives, some by themselves immediately, others by electors chosen by themselves.

Thus, our President is chosen by ourselves, directly in practice, for we vote for A as elector only on the condition he will vote for B; our representatives by ourselves immediately; our Senate and judges of law through electors chosen by ourselves. And we believe
that this proximate choice and power of removal is the best security which experience has sanctioned for ensuring an honest
conduct in the functionaries of society. . . .

But when we come to the moral principles on which the government is to be administered, we come to what is proper for all
conditions of society. I meet you there in all the benevolence and rectitude of your native character; and I love myself always
most where I concur most with you. Liberty, truth, probity, honor are declared to be the four cardinal principles of your
society.

I believe with you that morality, compassion, generosity are innate elements of the human constitution; that there exists
a right independent of force; that a right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed
to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible
beings; that no one has a right to obstruct another exercising his faculties innocently for the relief of sensibilities made
a part of his nature; that justice is the fundamental law of society; that the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty
of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest, breaks up the foundations of society; that action
by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence, and in all others by representatives chosen immediately
and removable by themselves, constitutes the essence of a republic; that all governments are more or less republican in proportion
as this principle enters more or less into their composition; and that a government by representation is capable of extension
over a greater surface of country than one of any other form. These, my friend, are the essentials in which you and I agree;
however, in our zeal for their maintenance, we may be perplexed and divaricate as to the structure of society most likely
to secure them. . . .

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of
day. Although I do not, with some enthusiasts, believe that the human condition will ever advance to such a state of perfection
as that there shall no longer be pain or vice in the world, yet I believe it susceptible of much improvement, and most of
all in matters of government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by
which it is to be effected.

I should be destitute of feeling if I was not deeply affected by the strong proof which my fellow-citizens have given me of
their confidence in calling me to the high office whose functions I am about to assume. As the expression of their good opinion
of my conduct in the public service, I derive from it a gratification which those who are conscious of having done all that
they could to merit it can alone feel. My sensibility is increased by a just estimate of the importance of the trust and of
the nature and extent of its duties, with the proper discharge of which the highest interests of a great and free people are
intimately connected. Conscious of my own deficiency, I cannot enter on these duties without great anxiety for the result.
From a just responsibility I will never shrink, calculating with confidence that in my best efforts to promote the public
welfare my motives will always be duly appreciated and my conduct be viewed with that candor and indulgence which I have experienced
in other stations.

In commencing the duties of the chief executive office it has been the practice of the distinguished men who have gone before
me to explain the principles which would govern them in their respective Administrations. In following their venerated example
my attention is naturally drawn to the great causes which have contributed in a principal degree to produce the present happy
condition of the United States. They will best explain the nature of our duties and shed much light on the policy which ought
to be pursued in future.

From the commencement of our Revolution to the present day almost forty years have elapsed, and from the establishment of
this Constitution twenty-eight. Through this whole term the Government has been what may emphatically be called self-government.
And what has been the effect? To whatever object we turn our attention, whether it relates to our foreign or domestic concerns,
we find abundant cause to felicitate ourselves in the excellence of our institutions. During a period fraught with difficulties
and marked by very extraordinary events the United States have flourished beyond example. Their citizens individually have
been happy and the nation prosperous.

Under this Constitution our commerce has been wisely regulated with foreign nations and between the States; new States have
been admitted into our Union; our territory has been enlarged by fair and honorable treaty, and with great advantage to the
original States; the States, respectively protected by the National Government under a mild, parental system against foreign
dangers, and enjoying within their separate spheres, by a wise partition of power, a just proportion of the sovereignty, have
improved their police, extended their settlements, and attained a strength and maturity which are the best proofs of wholesome
laws well administered. And if we look to the condition of individuals what a proud spectacle does it exhibit! On whom has
oppression fallen in any quarter of our Union? Who has been deprived of any right of person or property? Who restrained from
offering his vows in the mode which he prefers to the Divine Author of his being? It is well known that all these blessings
have been enjoyed in their fullest extent; and I add with peculiar satisfaction that there has been no example of a capital
punishment being inflicted on anyone for the crime of high treason.

Some who might admit the competency of our Government to these beneficent duties might doubt it in trials which put to the
test its strength and efficiency as a member of the great community of nations. Here too experience has afforded us the most
satisfactory proof in its favor. Just as this Constitution was put into action several of the principal States of Europe had
become much agitated and some of them seriously convulsed. Destructive wars ensued, which have of late only been terminated.
In the course of these conflicts the United States received great injury from several of the parties. It was their interest
to stand aloof from the contest, to demand justice from the party committing the injury, and to cultivate by a fair and honorable
conduct the friendship of all. War became at length inevitable, and the result has shown that our Government is equal to that,
the greatest of trials, under the most unfavorable circumstances. Of the virtue of the people and of the heroic exploits of
the Army, the Navy, and the militia I need not speak.

Such, then, is the happy Government under which we live-a Government adequate to every purpose for which the social compact
is formed; a Government elective in all its branches, under which every citizen may by his merit obtain the highest trust
recognized by the Constitution; which contains within it no cause of discord, none to put at variance one portion of the community
with another; a Government which protects every citizen in the full enjoyment of his rights, and is able to protect the nation
against injustice from foreign powers.

Other considerations of the highest importance admonish us to cherish our Union and to cling to the Government which supports
it. Fortunate as we are in our political institutions, we have not been less so in other circumstances on which our prosperity
and happiness essentially depend. Situated within the temperate zone, and extending through many degrees of latitude along
the Atlantic, the United States enjoy all the varieties of climate, and every production incident to that portion of the globe.
Penetrating internally to the Great Lakes and beyond the sources of the great rivers which communicate through our whole interior,
no country was ever happier with respect to its domain. Blessed, too, with a fertile soil, our produce has always been very
abundant, leaving, even in years the least favorable, a surplus for the wants of our fellow-men in other countries. Such is
our peculiar felicity that there is not a part of our Union that is not particularly interested in preserving it. The great
agricultural interest of the nation prospers under its protection. Local interests are not less fostered by it. Our fellow-citizens
of the North engaged in navigation find great encouragement in being made the favored carriers of the vast productions of
the other portions of the United States, while the inhabitants of these are amply recompensed, in their turn, by the nursery
for seamen and naval force thus formed and reared up for the support of our common rights. Our manufactures find a generous
encouragement by the policy which patronizes domestic industry, and the surplus of our produce a steady and profitable market
by local wants in less-favored parts at home.

Such, then, being the highly favored condition of our country, it is the interest of every citizen to maintain it. What are
the dangers which menace us? If any exist they ought to be ascertained and guarded against.

In explaining my sentiments on this subject it may be asked, What raised us to the present happy state? How did we accomplish
the Revolution? How remedy the defects of the first instrument of our Union, by infusing into the National Government sufficient
power for national purposes, without impairing the just rights of the States or affecting those of individuals? How sustain
and pass with glory through the late war? The Government has been in the hands of the people. To the people, therefore, and
to the faithful and able depositaries of their trust is the credit due. Had the people of the United States been educated
in different principles, had they been less intelligent, less independent, or less virtuous, can it be believed that we should
have maintained the same steady and consistent career or been blessed with the same success? While, then, the constituent
body retains its present sound and healthful state everything will be safe. They will choose competent and faithful representatives
for every department. It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they
are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people
themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin. Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor
to preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote intelligence among the people as the
best means of preserving our liberties.

Dangers from abroad are not less deserving of attention. Experiencing the fortune of other nations, the United States may
be again involved in war, and it may in that event be the object of the adverse party to overset our Government, to break
our Union, and demolish us as a nation. Our distance from Europe and the just, moderate, and pacific policy of our Government
may form some security against these dangers, but they ought to be anticipated and guarded against. Many of our citizens are
engaged in commerce and navigation, and all of them are in a certain degree dependent on their prosperous state. Many are
engaged in the fisheries. These interests are exposed to invasion in the wars between other powers, and we should disregard
the faithful admonition of experience if we did not expect it. We must support our rights or lose our character, and with
it, perhaps, our liberties. A people who fail to do it can scarcely be said to hold a place among independent nations. National
honor is national property of the highest value. The sentiment in the mind of every citizen is national strength. It ought
therefore to be cherished.

To secure us against these dangers our coast and inland frontiers should be fortified, our Army and Navy, regulated upon just
principles as to the force of each, be kept in perfect order, and our militia be placed on the best practicable footing. To
put our extensive coast in such a state of defense as to secure our cities and interior from invasion will be attended with
expense, but the work when finished will be permanent, and it is fair to presume that a single campaign of invasion by a naval
force superior to our own, aided by a few thousand land troops, would expose us to greater expense, without taking into the
estimate the loss of property and distress of our citizens, than would be sufficient for this great work. Our land and naval
forces should be moderate, but adequate to the necessary purposes-the former to garrison and preserve our fortifications and
to meet the first invasions of a foreign foe, and, while constituting the elements of a greater force, to preserve the science
as well as all the necessary implements of war in a state to be brought into activity in the event of war; the latter, retained
within the limits proper in a state of peace, might aid in maintaining the neutrality of the United States with dignity in
the wars of other powers and in saving the property of their citizens from spoliation. In time of war, with the enlargement
of which the great naval resources of the country render it susceptible, and which should be duly fostered in time of peace,
it would contribute essentially, both as an auxiliary of defense and as a powerful engine of annoyance, to diminish the calamities
of war and to bring the war to a speedy and honorable termination.

But it ought always to be held prominently in view that the safety of these States and of everything dear to a free people
must depend in an eminent degree on the militia. Invasions may be made too formidable to be resisted by any land and naval
force which it would comport either with the principles of our Government or the circumstances of the United States to maintain.
In such cases recourse must be had to the great body of the people, and in a manner to produce the best effect. It is of the
highest importance, therefore, that they be so organized and trained as to be prepared for any emergency. The arrangement
should be such as to put at the command of the Government the ardent patriotism and youthful vigor of the country. If formed
on equal and just principles, it can not be oppressive. It is the crisis which makes the pressure, and not the laws which
provide a remedy for it. This arrangement should be formed, too, in time of peace, to be the better prepared for war. With
such an organization of such a people the United States have nothing to dread from foreign invasion. At its approach an overwhelming
force of gallant men might always be put in motion.

Other interests of high importance will claim attention, among which the improvement of our country by roads and canals, proceeding
always with a constitutional sanction, holds a distinguished place. By thus facilitating the intercourse between the States
we shall add much to the convenience and comfort of our fellow-citizens, much to the ornament of the country, and, what is
of greater importance, we shall shorten distances, and, by making each part more accessible to and dependent on the other,
we shall bind the Union more closely together. Nature has done so much for us by intersecting the country with so many great
rivers, bays, and lakes, approaching from distant points so near to each other, that the inducement to complete the work seems
to be peculiarly strong. A more interesting spectacle was perhaps never seen than is exhibited within the limits of the United
States-a territory so vast and advantageously situated, containing objects so grand, so useful, so happily connected in all
their parts!

Our manufacturers will likewise require the systematic and fostering care of the Government. Possessing as we do all the raw
materials, the fruit of our own soil and industry, we ought not to depend in the degree we have done on supplies from other
countries. While we are thus dependent the sudden event of war, unsought and unexpected, can not fail to plunge us into the
most serious difficulties. It is important, too, that the capital which nourishes our manufacturers should be domestic, as
its influence in that case instead of exhausting, as it may do in foreign hands, would be felt advantageously on agriculture
and every other branch of industry. Equally important is it to provide at home a market for our raw materials, as by extending
the competition it will enhance the price and protect the cultivator against the casualties incident to foreign markets.

With the Indian tribes it is our duty to cultivate friendly relations and to act with kindness and liberality in all our transactions.
Equally proper is it to persevere in our efforts to extend to them the advantages of civilization.

The great amount of our revenue and the flourishing state of the Treasury are a full proof of the competency of the national
resources for any emergency, as they are of the willingness of our fellow-citizens to bear the burdens which the public necessities
require. The vast amount of vacant lands, the value of which daily augments, forms an additional resource of great extent
and duration. These resources, besides accomplishing every other necessary purpose, put it completely in the power of the
United States to discharge the national debt at an early period. Peace is the best time for improvement and preparation of
every kind; it is in peace that our commerce flourishes most, that taxes are most easily paid, and that the revenue is most
productive.

The Executive is charged officially in the Departments under it with the disbursement of the public money, and is responsible
for the faithful application of it to the purposes for which it is raised. The Legislature is the watchful guardian over the
public purse. It is its duty to see that the disbursement has been honestly made. To meet the requisite responsibility every
facility should be afforded to the Executive to enable it to bring the public agents intrusted with the public money strictly
and promptly to account. Nothing should be presumed against them; but if, with the requisite facilities, the public money
is suffered to lie long and uselessly in their hands, they will not be the only defaulters, nor will the demoralizing effect
be confined to them. It will evince a relaxation and want of tone in the Administration which will be felt by the whole community.
I shall do all I can to secure economy and fidelity in this important branch of the Administration, and I doubt not that the
Legislature will perform its duty with equal zeal. A thorough examination should be regularly made, and I will promote it.

It is particularly gratifying to me to enter on the discharge of these duties at a time when the United States are blessed
with peace. It is a state most consistent with their prosperity and happiness. It will be my sincere desire to preserve it,
so far as depends on the Executive, on just principles with all nations, claiming nothing unreasonable of any and rendering
to each what is its due.

Equally gratifying is it to witness the increased harmony of opinion which pervades our Union. Discord does not belong to
our system. Union is recommended as well by the free and benign principles of our Government, extending its blessings to every
individual, as by the other eminent advantages attending it. The American people have encountered together great dangers and
sustained severe trials with success. They constitute one great family with a common interest. Experience has enlightened
us on some questions of essential importance to the country. The progress has been slow, dictated by a just reflection and
a faithful regard to every interest connected with it. To promote this harmony in accord with the principles of our republican
Government and in a manner to give them the most complete effect, and to advance in all other respects the best interests
of our Union, will be the object of my constant and zealous exertions.

Never did a government commence under auspices so favorable, nor ever was success so complete. If we look to the history of
other nations, ancient or modern, we find no example of a growth so rapid, so gigantic, of a people so prosperous and happy.
In contemplating what we have still to perform, the heart of every citizen must expand with joy when he reflects how near
our Government has approached to perfection; that in respect to it we have no essential improvement to make; that the great
object is to preserve it in the essential principles and features which characterize it, and that is to be done by preserving
the virtue and enlightening the minds of the people; and as a security against foreign dangers to adopt such arrangements
as are indispensable to the support of our independence, our rights and liberties. If we persevere in the career in which
we have advanced so far and in the path already traced, we can not fail, under the favor of a gracious Providence, to attain
the high destiny which seems to await us.

In the Administrations of the illustrious men who have preceded me in this high station, with some of whom I have been connected
by the closest ties from early life, examples are presented which will always be found highly instructive and useful to their
successors. From these I shall endeavor to derive all the advantages which they may afford. Of my immediate predecessor, under
whom so important a portion of this great and successful experiment has been made, I shall be pardoned for expressing my earnest
wishes that he may long enjoy in his retirement the affections of a grateful country, the best reward of exalted talents and
the most faithful and meritorious service. Relying on the aid to be derived from the other departments of the Government,
I enter on the trust to which I have been called by the suffrages of my fellow-citizens with my fervent prayers to the Almighty
that He will be graciously pleased to continue to us that protection which He has already so conspicuously displayed in our
favor.

In his third annual message to Congress on December 8, 1863, Lincoln for the first time presented a program for Reconstruction,
a plan marked by considerable leniency. The message was preceded on the same day by a presidential proclamation that laid
down the conditions for Reconstruction. Lincoln's plan was based on three assumptions: that the Southern states had never
legally been out of the Union; that they could be restored as soon as their political institutions were properly reordered;
and the Reconstruction was largely an executive function. The plan aroused bitter resentment among the Radical Republicans.
Lincoln's plan was carried out during his lifetime in the restored states, but Congress never recognized "Lincoln governments"
in the South. The Proclamation and portions of Lincoln's message are reprinted below.

I.

Proclamation of Amnesty

Whereas in and by the Constitution of the United States it is provided that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and
pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment"; and

Whereas a rebellion now exists whereby the loyal state governments of several states have for a long time been subverted, and many
persons have committed and are now guilty of treason against the United States; and

Whereas, with reference to said rebellion and treason, laws have been enacted by Congress declaring forfeitures and confiscation of
property and liberation of slaves, all upon terms and conditions therein stated, and also declaring that the President was
thereby authorized at any time thereafter, by proclamation, to extend to persons who may have participated in the existing
rebellion in any state or part thereof pardon and amnesty, with such exceptions and at such times and on such conditions as
he may deem expedient for the public welfare; and

Whereas the congressional declaration for limited and conditional pardon accords with well-established judicial exposition of the
pardoning power; and

Whereas, with reference to said rebellion, the President of the United States has issued several proclamations with provisions in
regard to the liberation of slaves; and

Whereas it is now desired by some persons heretofore engaged in said rebellion to resume their allegiance to the United States and
to reinaugurate loyal state governments within and for their respective states:

Therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do proclaim, declare, and make known to all persons who have, directly
or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, that a full pardon is hereby granted
to them and each of them, with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves and in property cases where rights
of third parties shall have intervened, and upon the condition that every such person shall take and subscribe an oath and
thenceforward keep and maintain said oath inviolate, and which oath shall be registered for permanent preservation and shall
be of the tenor and effect following, to wit:

I, -- -- --, do solemnly swear, in presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend
the Constitution of the United States and the Union of the states thereunder; and that I will in like manner abide by and
faithfully support all acts of Congress passed during the existing rebellion with reference to slaves, so long and so far
as not repealed, modified, or held void by Congress or by decision of the Supreme Court; and that I will in like manner abide
by and faithfully support all proclamations of the President made during the existing rebellion having reference to slaves,
so long and so far as not modified or declared void by decision of the Supreme Court. So help me God.

The persons excepted from the benefits of the foregoing provisions are all who are or shall have been civil or diplomatic
officers or agents of the so-called Confederate government; all who have left judicial stations under the United States to
aid the rebellion; all who are or shall have been military or naval officers of said so-called Confederate government above
the rank of colonel in the Army or of lieutenant in the Navy; all who left seats in the United States Congress to aid the
rebellion; all who resigned commissions in the Army or Navy of the United States and afterward aided the rebellion; and all
who have engaged in any way in treating colored persons, or white persons in charge of such, otherwise than lawfully as prisoners
of war, and which persons may have been found in the United States service as soldiers, seamen, or in any other capacity.

And I do further proclaim, declare, and make known that whenever, in any of the states of Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina, a number of persons, not less than one-tenth in
number of the votes cast in such state at the presidential election of the year A.D. 1860, each having taken oath aforesaid,
and not having since violated it, and being a qualified voter by the election law of the state existing immediately before
the so-called act of secession, and excluding all others, shall reestablish a state government which shall be republican and
in nowise contravening said oath, such shall be recognized as the true government of the state, and the state shall receive
thereunder the benefits of the constitutional provision which declares that "the United States shall guarantee to every state
in this Union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion, and, on application of the
legislature, or the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence."

And I do further proclaim, declare, and make known that any provision which may be adopted by such state government in relation
to the freed people of such state which shall recognize and declare their permanent freedom, provide for their education,
and which may yet be consistent as a temporary arrangement with their present condition as a laboring, landless, and homeless
class will not be objected to by the national executive.

And it is suggested as not improper that in constructing a loyal state government in any state the name of the state, the
boundary, the subdivisions, the constitution, and the general code of laws as before the rebellion be maintained, subject
only to the modifications made necessary by the conditions hereinbefore stated, and such others, if any, not contravening
said conditions and which may be deemed expedient by those framing the new state government.

To avoid misunderstanding, it may be proper to say that this proclamation, so far as it related to state governments, has
no reference to states wherein loyal state governments have all the while been maintained. And for the same reason it may
be proper to further say that whether members sent to Congress from any state shall be admitted to seats constitutionally
rests exclusively with the respective houses and not to any extent with the executive. And, still further, that this proclamation
is intended to present the people of the states wherein the national authority has been suspended and loyal state governments
have been subverted a mode in and by which the national authority and loyal state governments may be reestablished within
said states or in any of them; and while the mode presented is the best the executive can suggest, with his present impressions,
it must not be understood that no other possible mode would be acceptable.

II.

Annual Message to Congress

When Congress assembled a year ago, the war had already lasted nearly twenty months, and there had been many conflicts on
both land and sea, with varying results. The rebellion had been pressed back into reduced limits; yet the tone of public feeling
and opinion, at home and abroad, was not satisfactory.

With other signs, the popular elections, then just past, indicated uneasiness among ourselves, while, amid much that was cold
and menacing, the kindest words coming from Europe were uttered in accents of pity, that we were too blind to surrender a
hopeless cause. Our commerce was suffering greatly by a few armed vessels built upon and furnished from foreign shores, and
we were threatened with such additions from the same quarter as would sweep our trade from the sea and raise our blockade.
We had failed to elicit from European governments anything hopeful upon this subject.

The preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, issued in September, was running its assigned period to the beginning of the new
year. A month later the final proclamation came, including the announcement that colored men of suitable condition would be
received into the war service. The policy of emancipation and of employing black soldiers gave to the future a new aspect,
about which hope, and fear, and doubt contended in uncertain conflict. According to our political system, as a matter of civil
administration, the general government had no lawful power to effect emancipation in any state, and for a long time it had
been hoped that the rebellion could be suppressed without resorting to it as a military measure. It was all the while deemed
possible that the necessity for it might come, and that if it should, the crisis of the contest would then be presented. It
came, and, as was anticipated, it was followed by dark and doubtful days.

Eleven months having now passed, we are permitted to take another review. The Rebel borders are pressed still farther back,
and by the complete opening of the Mississippi the country dominated by the rebellion is divided into distinct parts, with
no practical communication between them. Tennessee and Arkansas have been substantially cleared of insurgent control, and
influential citizens in each, owners of slaves and advocates of slavery at the beginning of the rebellion, now declare openly
for emancipation in their respective states. Of those states not included in the Emancipation Proclamation, Maryland and Missouri,
neither of which three years ago would tolerate any restraint upon the extension of slavery into new territories, only dispute
now as to the best mode of removing it within their own limits.

Of those who were slaves at the beginning of the rebellion, full 100,000 are now in the United States military service, about
one-half of which number actually bear arms in the ranks; thus giving the double advantage of taking so much labor from the
insurgent cause and supplying the places which otherwise must be filled with so many white men. So far as tested, it is difficult
to say they are not as good soldiers as any. No servile insurrection or tendency to violence or cruelty has marked the measures
of emancipation and arming the blacks. These measures have been much discussed in foreign countries, and, contemporary with
such discussion, the tone of public sentiment there is much improved. At home the same measures have been fully discussed,
supported, criticized, and denounced, and the annual elections following are highly encouraging to those whose official duty
it is to bear the country through this great trial. Thus we have the new reckoning. The crisis which threatened to divide
the friends of the Union is past.

Looking now to the present and future, and with reference to a resumption of the national authority within the states wherein
that authority has been suspended, I have thought fit to issue a proclamation, a copy of which is herewith transmitted. On
examination of this proclamation it will appear, as is believed, that nothing will be attempted beyond what is amply justified
by the Constitution. True, the form of an oath is given, but no man is coerced to take it. The man is only promised a pardon
in case he voluntarily takes the oath. The Constitution authorizes the executive to grant or withhold the pardon at his own
absolute discretion; and this includes the power to grant on terms, as is fully established by judicial and other authorities.

It is also profferred that if, in any of the states named, a state government shall be, in the mode prescribed, set up, such
government shall be recognized and guaranteed by the United States, and that under it the state shall, on the constitutional
conditions, be protected against invasion and domestic violence. The constitutional obligation of the United States to guarantee
to every state in the Union a republican form of government and to protect the state in the cases stated is explicit and full.
But why tender the benefits of this provision only to a state government set up in this particular way? This section of the
Constitution contemplates a case wherein the element within a state favorable to republican government in the Union may be
too feeble for an opposite and hostile element external to, or even within, the state; and such are precisely the cases with
which we are now dealing.

An attempt to guarantee and protect a revived state government constructed in whole or in preponderating part from the very
element against whose hostility and violence it is to be protected is simply absurd. There must be a test by which to separate
the opposing elements, so as to build only from the sound; and that test is a sufficiently liberal one which accepts as sound
whoever will make a sworn recantation of his former unsoundness.

But if it be proper to require as a test of admission to the political body an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the
United States and to the Union under it, why also to the laws and proclamations in regard to slavery? Those laws and proclamations
were enacted and put forth for the purpose of aiding in the suppression of the rebellion. To give them their fullest effect,
there had to be a pledge for their maintenance. In my judgment they have aided and will further aid the cause for which they
were intended. To now abandon them would be not only to relinquish a lever of power but would also be a cruel and an astounding
breach of faith.

I may add at this point, that while I remain in my present position I shall not attempt to retract or modify the Emancipation
Proclamation; nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms of that proclamation or by any of the acts
of Congress. For these and other reasons it is thought best that support of these measures shall be included in the oath;
and it is believed the executive may lawfully claim it in return for pardon and restoration of forfeited rights, which he
has clear constitutional power to withhold altogether, or grant upon the terms which he shall deem wisest for the public interest.
It should be observed, also, that this part of the oath is subject to the modifying and abrogating power of legislation and
supreme judicial decision.

The proposed acquiescence of the national executive in any reasonable temporary state arrangement for the freed people is
made with the view of possibly modifying the confusion and destitution which must, at best, attend all classes by a total
revolution of labor throughout whole states. It is hoped that the already deeply afflicted people in those states may be somewhat
more ready to give up the cause of their affliction, if to this extent this vital matter be left to themselves; while no power
of the national executive to prevent an abuse is abridged by the proposition.

The suggestion in the proclamation as to maintaining the political framework of the states on what is called reconstruction
is made in the hope that it may do good without danger of harm. It will save labor and avoid great confusion.

But why any proclamation now upon this subject? This question is beset with the conflicting views that the step might be delayed
too long or be taken too soon. In some states the elements for resumption seem ready for action, but remain inactive, apparently
for want of a rallying point--a plan of action. Why shall A adopt the plan of B, rather than B that of A? And if A and B should
agree, how can they know but that the general government here will reject their plan? By the proclamation a plan is presented
which may be accepted by them as a rallying point, and which they are assured in advance will not be rejected here. This may
bring them to act sooner than they otherwise would.

The objections to a premature presentation of a plan by the national executive consist in the danger of committals on points
which could be more safely left to further developments. Care has been taken to so shape the document as to avoid embarrassments
from this source. Saying that on certain terms certain classes will be pardoned, with rights restored, it is not said that
other classes, or other terms, will never be included. Saying that reconstruction will be accepted if presented in a specified
way, it is not said it will never be accepted in any other way.

The movements, by state action, for emancipation in several of the states not included in the Emancipation Proclamation are
matters of profound gratulation. And while I do not repeat in detail what I have heretofore so earnestly urged upon this subject,
my general views and feelings remain unchanged; and I trust that Congress will omit no fair opportunity of aiding these important
steps to a great consummation.

In the midst of other cares, however important, we must not lose sight of the fact that the war power is still our main reliance.
To that power alone can we look yet for a time to give confidence to the people in the contested regions, that the insurgent
power will not again overrun them. Until that confidence shall be established, little can be done anywhere for what is called
reconstruction. Hence our chiefest care must still be directed to the Army and Navy, who have thus far borne their harder
part so nobly and well. And it may be esteemed fortunate that in giving the greatest efficiency to these indispensable arms,
we do also honorably recognize the gallant men, from commander to sentinel, who compose them, and to whom, more than to others,
the world must stand indebted for the home of freedom disenthralled, regenerated, enlarged, and perpetuated.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 6, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 179-191, 213-215.

John Adams's astute comments on the origin and growth of political parties were prompted by a pamphlet, Crisis, which had been sent to him by its author, William Keteltas. Adams, who had followed Washington in the presidency, had been
out of office for 11 years when he wrote this letter to Keteltas on November 25, 1812.

I have received your polite letter of the 6th of the month and your present of the Crisis. You will excuse a question or two. In page first, you say, "Our administrations, with the exception of Washington's, have
been party administrations." On what ground do you except Washington's? If by party you mean majority, his majority was the
smallest of the four in all his legislative and executive acts, though not in his election.

You say, "our divisions began with Federalism and anti-Federalism." Alas! they began with human nature; they have existed
in America from its first plantation. In every colony, divisions always prevailed. In New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Massachusetts,
and all the rest, a court and country party have always contended. Whig and Tory disputed very sharply before the Revolution,
and in every step during the Revolution. Every measure of Congress, from 1774 to 1787, inclusively, was disputed with acrimony,
and decided by as small majorities as any question is decided in these days. We lost Canada then, as we are like to lose it
now, by a similar opposition. Away, then, with your false, though popular, distinctions in favor of Washington.

In page eleventh, you recommend a "constitutional rotation, to destroy the snake in the grass"; but the snake will elude your
snare. Suppose your president in rotation is to be chosen for Rhode Island. There will be a Federal and a Republican candidate
in that state. Every Federalist in the nation will vote for the former, and every Republican for the latter. The light troops
on both sides will skirmish; the same Northern and Southern distinctions will still prevail; the same running and riding;
the same railing and reviling; the same lying and libeling, cursing and swearing will still continue. The same caucusing,
assemblaging, and conventioning.

In the same page eleventh, you speak of a "portion of our own people who palsy the arm of the nation." There is too much truth
in this. When I was exerting every nerve to vindicate the honor, and demand a redress of the wrongs, of the nation against
the tyranny of France, the arm of the nation was palsied by one party. Now, Mr. Madison is acting the same part, for the same
ends, against Great Britain, the arm of the nation is palsied by the opposite party. And so it will always be while we feel
like colonists, dependent for protection on France or England; while we have so little national public opinion, so little
national principle, national feeling, national patriotism; while we have no sentiment of our own strength, power, and resources.

Source: The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, with a Life of the Author, Charles Francis Adams, ed., 1850-1856, 10 vols.